Discussion about gallery improvements

I respectfully disagree. The features you’ve mentioned are not things the majority of users need or want, and for those that do, plugins are an entirely appropriate solution.

Plugins let people choose exactly what they themselves want, which is probably different from what others want. For example, there are probably more than 100 different JavaScript lightbox libraries. Which one would ClassicPress choose to adopt? The one you like? Why?

However, if there are functions that you want ClassicPress to include in core, you can submit a petition for each one and then people can vote on them.

4 Likes

I’m with you on that one @Marialena.S. I take the view that:

fewer plugins = less risk + less chance of conflicts + fewer headaches

But here I agree with @zigpress. I’ve done websites for a couple of photographers. One wasn’t at all bothered about protecting his work. He didn’t want watermarking or to disable right-click. The other one however, wanted the whole lot. Password protection (where appropriate), disable right click and watermarking. So even among people in the same profession, there are significantly different requirements.

In any event, my view is that if you display any image on a website, you should probably consider it as already being in the public domain. There are many ways around disabling right click including something as simple as doing a screen grab for instance. Watermarking is the only protection worth considering in my view. And that requires no plugin.

Regarding the point about inactive plugins. Again, in my view, if you have PHP code anywhere on your site, it is a potential security risk. Even PHP itself is a security risk. As is Apache / Nginx etc. And Linux. You can never be 100% secure. All you can do is to take reasonable precautions…and try not to worry too much about it. Spending some time getting to grips with .htaccess is also worthwhile (but not on a live site!).

5 Likes

The gallery feature that I brought as an example of a nonfunctional feature, doesn’t work at all as it comes out of the box, upon the installation. It doesn’t have any of the things that a gallery should have. It can’t even justify the images the one next to the other.
Now… it has nothing to do with my own needs or own preferences. It is that I don’t know a single person that has a website or a blog, who wouldn’t like to have at some point more than one images in an article that should be at least justified and not randomly spread all over the place.
And you know something… There are not that many plugins that can do that job out there. In fact I wasn’t able to find any that does just this particular job. To justify multiple images.

I have found many that justify the images but have also a trillion other features that either are not needed but can’t be disabled from the settings or don’t work most of the times properly. They delay the website, they don’t load the photos, they conflict with other plugins etc. etc. etc.

What is the purpose of a feature that doesn’t work out of the box
and needs enhancements that depend on third party developers?
It is like claiming to sell a super safe car and then demand from your clients to buy the ABS as an extra… or something similar.

Just because some don’t bother that doesn’t mean that the/any CMS should offer non functional features. I’m not speaking about all and everything under the sun, but at least the basics.
If a CMS offers a gallery that gallery thing must work. At least put multiple images in order.
Same for the editor, same for the library same for the safety features.
You can’t depend the safety of your website on third party plugins because you can’t and you’ll never know what are the intentions of the one or the other company or individual.

Not to mention the advertising that most of the plugin companies push inside the websites that use their products.

I for instance, don’t want to have advertisements on my website. Why should I have to endure them just because wordpress or classic press doesn’t have a native working lightbox, or gallery, or SEO or commerce feature available?

What is a gallery, though? A gallery is just a place to show, say, artwork, images, or other assets. There is no prescription for how it should be setup or laid out, what is should do, or anything else, other than it should allow you to show your assets. All the additional expectations were created and reinforced by 3rd party plugins. The core “gallery” functionality does exactly what a gallery should do; nothing more, nothing less. If you wanted different placement of images, you can use CSS. Or, if you want a lightbox, you can add that, too. My point is, it’s incredibly difficult to say (with certainty) that feature x will be wanted/needed by y% of people, and that z% of people aren’t going to PO’d by the extra features, considering them mere bloat.

In a real art gallery, if they want better showcasing than just sticking the pieces on the wall, they can add lighting, information, etc.The CP gallery functionality is much the same; it’ll help you put your art on the wall, but, from there, it’s up to you.

4 Likes

I have the notion that you haven’t tried to use the native WP gallery without any plugins in order to see how it looks like.
It looks like nothing. It is the same as attaching randomly in an article multiple images. The images go wherever they want to.

This is how it looks like. Without text because if there is text too then things get very very messed up.

ETA which also affects how the website looks like on small screens and mobile devices.

Yes, that is exactly what one should expect the functionality to produce – a way to display the assets. And displayed they are. :slight_smile:

Like I said previously, the extra functionality you mentioned, those things are like after-market add-ons… Like, if you bought a car that had GPS as a standard option… then went to a different car that only offered it as a paid option…if you expected them to add the GPS because that’s what you were used to, well, I don’t think you’d get very far into a deal.

What we’re really looking at here is that 3rd party plugins have set certain expectations, and some end users have mistaken those now-expected features as what should be “standard” in the core functionality.

6 Likes

Excuse me but “developing” means going forward not backwards.
That means that of course I expect from amy modern 2019 CMS’s gallery feature, to have better functionality than its 2001 version. And without depending on the one or the other plugin.
Not to mention that a gallery is one of the most basic features that any platform which wants to call itself a CMS should have.
CMS means Content Management System. If it can manage the content by itself and the end user has to rely on third party applications then I don’t see what is purpose of using it in the first place.

If you were to apply this logic, in general, as you have here, then CP should also include full SEO, built-in forms, complete security, 100% spam control,… etc, etc, etc. In fact, by this logic, plugins wouldn’t be needed at all. It doesn’t make sense, particularly in a product that aims to be slim.

As I’ve already noted, there is a gallery included. You aren’t happy with the default functionality … I get that… but it’s still gallery functionality.

Yes, CMS means content management system. Notice it doesn’t mention anything about gallery styling system. :wink: Moreover, comments like this are a bully tactic – “play by my rules or I’ll flip the game and go home” – so, please don’t go down that road. There are any number of other systems you could be using.

5 Likes

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all CMS (although WP tried to be that). And any CMS built to your (or any one site owner’s) specifications will have very limited appeal to many other site owners.

We’re about creating a great CMS core that can be modified to suit individual needs. That means plugins or developer modifications.

3 Likes

Of course there isn’t such a thing. I agree with you. My point is that a modern CMS has to have advanced features on whatever has to do with the management of the content.
Something that Wordpress doesn’t have because it was developed initially to be a blog platform and not a CMS for every purpose.

I think that you misunderstood the content of my post.
I have no intention to bully anyone because I’m not that sort of person. I meant literally what I said. If a content management system isn’t able to manage the content properly then it is not a good content management system.
WP is not actually such a good CMS because without the countless plugins that were developed by individuals and companies non related with the WP development team it doesn’t work that well. And that has nothing to do with the gallery particularly, which is actually one of the features that don’t work properly without the addition of plugins.
That is what I meant and said and if you think that this is bullying then allow me to tell you that you took my post way too personally, like you were the initial designer and developer of WP. :slight_smile:

There are lots of sites that have no need for galleries at all. Building ‘advanced’ gallery features into core is completely wasted effort and ‘bloat’ from their perspective.

Plugins that extend the core CMS for specific needs are a good thing, not a sign that the CMS is inadequate. Allowing/encouraging a plugin ecosystem is definitely one of the things WP did right, and something we want to emulate.

3 Likes

Why use WordPress or ClassicPress if you don’t like it? Maybe you’d be happier using Weebly or Wix.

EDIT: I don’t mean that in a snarky way: I genuinely wonder if WordPress/ClassicPress is the best fit for your needs.

Please start a petition for this suggestion. The more specific and precise you can be about what should change (ideally including an “after” screenshot to match your “before” screenshot above), the easier it will be for me and other developers to implement it.

4 Likes

My two cents. There is/are petitions to improve media library.
The thing is, maybe you don’t want to bully, but writing “or else” sentences is a negative way of communicating.
If you don’t like the plugins ecosystem WP/CP are based on maybe you should really evaluate something else.
Your suggestions are valuable, and people are telling you that in WP/CP ecosystem they translate in a very sleek media library with generic, unrefined features coupled with a plugin.
I think you tried many. Nothing does what you need.
Ok, so… First thing first: go to @CodePotent post where he asks about essential features. Help shape the plugin ecosystem. Describe the plugin and what it should do to suit your needs.
Second, go check media library petition(s).
If a plugin doesn’t exists, it’s time to build it.
Also, I think “fewer plugins=less issues” is not always true.
Having a site done with WP/CP means being conscious that it needs an eye on. My .com site went astray completely just by one plugin updating. One has to read changelogs, has to be aware. It’s not like you build the site and it stays ok forevvah.
This means learning to understand code language, dirty your hands in it from time to time.
If you don’t like this, CP is not for you, again.
So please, stop behaving like a child throwing tantrums (pardon my sharp edges) and think about the choice you’ve made about CMS.
Then, if you decide CP is indeed for you, please help shape the ecosystem by suggesting how a media library plugin should behave for artists like you. Because this is what is really needed.

2 Likes

I understand your arguments and I suppose that some end clients think the same. But the problem is that universal CMS is used in very different ways and for very different goals. And any feature can be implemented in many different ways. Each way has its pros and contras.

That’s why the main idea is to exclude styling from the core and delegate final tuning (styling, lightboxing etc) to plugins. Clean default output is universal and flexible. It allows to apply any styling and any plugin. But if we provide some customization by default via the core it would ruin this flexibility. Each site would load a bunch of default styles and scripts no matter if they are unused or unwanted.

But your note is also important.

I think the best solution is to keep core clean, universal and minimalistic, but also to release some “power packs” or specialized themes which contain predefined plugins out of the box. Clean core is for developers, “production” themes, power packs and custom builds are for end users. Gallery styling belongs to theme or plugins, not to the CP release itself.

1 Like

I think that “gallery” is one of the wider territory for plugins.
If we are speaking about duplicating posts, having custom fields, enforce SSL or spam protection you can have many plugin but the results are quite the same, so you’ll like more one solution because is easier or faster to configure.
But a gallery can have infinite requirements. AJAX filtering, automatic watermarking, protections, hovers, descriptions… I’ve never used the same plugin for different galleries because there is not the “right” one.
Because of that I think that gallery is totally plugin territory.

Note on right-click protection: it’s useful only to images authors that want a false feeling of protection.
My browser (with the right mod) don’t care for this protection.

3 Likes

Because those you mention stand on the exact opposite side on regard of their usability. Or they lock their users in their platforms.

I think that none of you have really understand the point of this discussion. It is not about hating WP or CP. It is all about how CP can differentiate from WP.
WP has some inherent problems because it was developed for all these years from a very basic blog platform.
CP can move completely away from WP model of development that is actually depending on third party developers and patching hard the core in order to cbe compatible with what these third party developers bring to the platform.

@all This is just a discussion about what can get improved. Don’t take it personally please. I can’t apologize on my posts about my thoughts on WP, and I 'm not writing these thoughts because I have any intention to move to another platform. If I wanted to do so I would have done it already instead of migrating from WP to CP. :slight_smile:
Keep in mind also that English is not my first language. I might lose it sometimes in the translation. lol

My suggestion is to implement in the core some of those basic things that currently can be enabled only with plugins and then offer the plugins for those who would like to add something more in their websites.

The basics are: a full functional image gallery with its own lightbox and image justification. A basic SEO feature for those who want to set it themselves without adding yet another plugin, also something to help users edit their htaccess from the dashboard, as it is quite risky to rely on third party plugins to do so and an editor or something that can show the code of the plugins in order to be able to check them out before installation.

These are very basic things that they should have been there IMO but they aren’t because when WP was first made they were not needed.

And what are you going to do if the developers of the one or the other plugin stop offer support to CP? What makes you think that WP that got now the big money won’t pay/buy the exclusivity of the one or the other company or indipendent developer?
We have a saying here that says… " dance with yourself and jump as much as you like" and that means that if you have whatever you need you don’t have to give account or rely on anyone else.
Add the basics in the core and then let the plugin developers to join if they want to. But it is a mistake IMO to rely on the plugins when there is a “competitor” on the “market”, that is heavily sponsored too. ;))