I know there are page numbers in other places, but the 'What's New' gallery is the one I need, and have always used. There was nothing wrong with it as it was, and I even did access it (the old way I mean) on my phone when on holiday. No change was really needed.

While I'm not shocked at the management attitude that implemented this change and towards customers who don't like the new site, it does surprise me that such a decision clearly limits the exposure of new artwork when surely that is the opposite of what the site needs most of all... I'm baffled, but then I often am at many 'management decisions' that fly in the face of logic.

As to changing the new coding as mentioned above: I would guess that the most obnoxious thing to me (the history limit) could be changed be increasing a single parameter in the code. If not, then that's pretty poor coding (and yes, I've done more than just a tad of coding myself). The other site manages to display thousands of images this way, and also displays many more images before a 'wait for more images to load' is needed. I don't like it as such, but at least it is still usable over there because of those two simple differences. And really, given the cheapness of CPU these days, why could not two systems run in parallel, for those of us with real screens to sit in front of?

It's not a case of coding; it's a case of management decisions being made because someone had the bright idea that doing this means you can boast about your 'fancy new site' and maybe make a few extra pennies. Who cares about the people that the loss of actual usability and practicality loses along the way. I spent a lot of money on my monitors, and I don't appreciate being limited to a tablet-targeted, limited-bandwidth interface, and a poor implementation of it at that.

Standard company practice these days: asking for and expecting loyalty yet offering none in return. It stinks.