Magento

hello

on my homepage i display all new products.
unfortunately there is no reseizing for the thumbnail image.

there is no way to administrate the new products in the admin section.
any idea how to resize the thumbs so that customers dont have to dowload too long?

thanks

Dude, after searching for nearly an hour i discovered where you can change the thumbnail size:

look for the list.phtml doc and look for the (’catalog/image’)->init($_product, ‘small_image’)->resize(135, 135); ?>”

and change it to whatever you desire..

the path btw is:

app/design/frontend/default/default/template/catalog/product/list.phtml

BOOOYAAA!!!

actually you need to edit new.phtml

Thanks. It is new.phtml..

That just annoys me. Why is it such a problem to put an option like that in the admin area?

I’ve been using magento for a few weeks and the constant trawling through source files is really getting on my goat....

Oops, repost. Sorry.

Oh man.. I had done this hours ago, and it was showing up fine in Dreamweaver (I changed the small-image in the list view to the thumbnail, and made it 50x50 instead of 135), but in firefox it kept staying at 135, even though the image was correct (and the right size—what I mean by that is that the picture itself was 50x50 (as well as the actual thumbnail file itsef), but there was 135x135 worth of blank space containing it, all of which still corresponded to the url for the product page (you could click that space and access the url), and which still made the adjacent f-fix container float 135 pixels away).

In firebug, in the DOM view, the class “a.product-image” class list showed “clientwidth”, “clientheight”, “offsetwidth”, “offsetheight”, “scrollwidth”, and “scrollheight” still set to 135, even though in the html source listing, of course the width and height were explicitly set to 50, plain as day.

After trying everything I could think of, I just went and deleted firefox’s cache, and viola fixed!  What the heck was going on with that?  Would you consider this a firefox cache bug?  I mean, how can it get it wrong with the html is explicit about the properties?  Why cache this handful of bytes?  Or does Firefox cache the entire page?  I would think that that wasn’t the case since the source showed the correct values.