Intellectual Property is a full-featured real estate extension for the Joomla! CMS
IPReserve is a reservation extension for IProperty.
Need to keep track of your IProperty stats? Meet IReport - a reporting tool for IProperty!
Work Force is a staff listing extension for the Joomla! CMS. Show off your employees with style!
Report Card is a testimonials extension for the Joomla! CMS. What are people saying about your company or product?
Ultra Transport is a full-featured vehicle listing extension for the Joomla! CMS
Project Log is a project management extension for the Joomla! CMS. The best part is, it's totally free!
Have pre-sales questions or need support for an existing subscription? Look no further - we have active support forums and pride ourselves on friendly and timely response!
Not finding what you're looking for? Don't hesitate to contact us!
Before posting questions in the forums, please be sure to read the FAQs by clicking on the FAQs link in the sidebar product menu. You must be logged in and have a valid subscription to access the SUPPORT FORUMS.
elduderino replied the topic: A couple of suggestions for the Gallery
I second most of suggestion regarding images.
Always remember that either developers' clients and/or real estate agent who are doing their website themselves; are usually, what one call, "computer challenged" to say the least.
So when you start explaining about images (orientation, ratio ...); the answer you get? why can't the system does it automatically. Especially that they are so use to simple app like facebook ... where adding images is a breeze.
Of course, their many argument to that. But the point is that clients are like most people. It needs to be simple and fast.
On the other hand, regarding the "lightbox" script used. I would simple leave them available or remove the ones that are too "old" for modern website. But i would add baguetteBox (
) which is super light (6kb), fast, touch friendly and has no dependencies at all. Therefore no risk of conflict with other plugin installed on a site.
4 years 8 months ago - 4 years 8 months ago#46426by hkingman
hkingman replied the topic: A couple of suggestions for the Gallery
Yup. I've come to see the basic problem as classic "too much is not enough." There are multiple galleries to evaluate, only to find that none really integrates well.
I suspect that in this day and age, most people building new sites need mobile phone image swiping to be a priority. So right there, from among the options currently available, you are looking at EMBEDDING the gallery on the page. Doing so comes with a huge cost, though -- unless the images are all the same size, the contents of the page below the slideshow window jump all over the place, especially annoying during slideshow autoplay.
If the photos are to be the same size, the software should composite them onto a background of that size. The background should be the same shade as the site background. The result is like watching TV: some content has bars on the sides, some along the top and bottom, but all content fits in the same box -- the tv screen.
This is pretty simple to do with image magick, so if you have some legacy content you can do for instance something like this in your media/com_iproperty/pictures folder:
for j in $(ls | grep -v thumb); do composite $j -resize 1150x863 -gravity center bg.png $j; done
here, bg.png is your background tile that measures 1150x863.
Of course, once you do something like this, the die is cast, and you can not easily remove the background if you change your site design down the road. It'd be better if a slideshow were out there that was smart enough to do the compositing for you. I haven't seen it yet, though, at least not in the options available in IP. So, an option to save the uploaded original would be appropriate insurance.
But even with a slideshow that smart, a change would still be needed in IP: it would still need an option to resize not to a given width or height (the height option in IP does not appear to work, actually)... rather, it would need to constrain by whichever axis results in an uncropped image, while still maximizing the length of the other axis. For good reason, this is the default behavior of image magick's "convert -resize" command in its simplest form:
convert original.jpg -resize 1150x863 target.jpg
I took a look at gallery.php, and php.net, and I believe that imagecopyresampled is capable of compositing. If not, there is a php module version of image magick.
In gallery.php, it seems that you could just divide the width of your image by the height, compare that to your slideshow aspect ratio, and then either scale by width or scale by height. E.g., if your target size is 1150x863, your aspect ratio is the classic Golden Ratio of 3:2 (1.5), so:
Sadly, that is as far as I got before getting shunted onto something more pressing. And anyway, I hate porting hacks like this forward with each upgrade. So, here's hoping someone on the IP crew is listening
In the meanwhile, my realtor client is dutifully doing the compositing manually, in photoshop, before uploading. What a chore!
Cheers, and thanks again for the best real estate software out there...
Last Edit: 4 years 8 months ago by hkingman. Reason: Wanted to add option to save original upload files.
tim replied the topic: A couple of suggestions for the Gallery
As usual, good feedback Henry, but one issue is that imagemagick isn't installed by default in many common hosting plans. So you need to work with GD.
That being said, I understand your point about the resizing, but the problem is we need to not only deal with "pros" but with the people who are end users-- and you would be amazed at the variety of sizes, quality, and orientation of images that your average real estate agent might attempt to upload. So we try to please *most* people by keeping the width consistent, since if you use different widths it tends to mess up a layout a lot worse than having various heights.
hkingman replied the topic: A couple of suggestions for the Gallery
That being said, I understand your point about the resizing, but the problem is we need to not only deal with "pros" but with the people who are end users .. . So we try to please *most* people by keeping the width consistent, since if you use different widths it tends to mess up a layout a lot worse than having various heights.
Exactly my point. Maybe I wasn't clear. Keeping width consistent is not really good enough. We need height to stay the same, too.
Or, we could take all the uploaded images and make them all the same size, by overlaying them ("compositing" them) on a single, standard-sized background image. Depending on the aspect ratio of the uploaded image, either the height or the width would be maximized. So portrait-orientation images get turned into landscapes with bars on the sides, for instance. Widescreen (16:9) shots get turned into letter-boxed images with bars top and bottom.