Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
People lie about going to church and aren’t sure what “rural” means: Highlights from the latest in public opinion research
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
July 10, 2013, 3:16 p.m.
LINK: blog.instagram.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   July 10, 2013

No more need for hacky workarounds or third-party solutions to put an Instagram photo or video on your website, we’re told:

Now, when you visit an Instagram photo or video page on your desktop web browser, you’ll see a new share button on the right side of your photo (just under the comments button). Click the button to see the embed code. Copy the block of text it gives you and paste it into your blog, website or article. When you hit publish, the photo or video will appear.

There’s one way, though, in which it’s not particularly publisher friendly. Unlike, say, a YouTube embed, there’s no option on the embed code to set the width of your content well — it just defaults to 612 pixels wide. (Instagram’s web interface uses that size.)

But 612 pixels is too wide for lots of publishers’ sites. For instance, the well on this Nieman Lab post is 570 pixels, so this pic from New Orleans Saints free safety Malcolm Jenkins extends into the right sidebar by 42 pixels:

Not a great crime, but annoying. (Would be more than annoying if we had, say, a 400-pixel well.)

Compare that to, say, a Twitter embed, which will automatically constrict its size (and reflow its content) at smaller widths — as in the second tweet embed below, which I’ve artificially confined to a 300-pixel box:

You can work around this by manually changing the width attribute on an Instagram embed’s iframe. That works okay at larger widths — here’s 570px, 400px, and 312px:

But you’ll end up with awkward whitespace underneath the embed unless you also manually change the iframe’s height, which I’ve done here. The formula is height = width + 98px. So a 400px wide embed should be 498px tall.

But trial and error indicates that sort of manipulation still only works down to 312px in width. Below that, the iframe warps and won’t maintain the famous square aspect ratio of an Instagram photo. Here’s 200px × 298px:

So I guess we’ll still need hacky solutions after all. (If you’re desperate, you can always just use the actual raw photo, although Instagram would probably rather you not.)

In the meantime, just add easy Creative Commons licensing options to photos, Instagram, and all will be forgiven.

UPDATE: Friend-of-the-Lab Jeff Hobbs reminds me of the biggest problem with Instagram’s embeds: They won’t cooperate with responsive layouts. If you’re using media queries to fit a site into (say) the iPhone’s 320px width, a 612px Instagram embed will screw up your layout. (The same is true for YouTube embeds, but you can get around that by using FitVids.js or something similar.)

But he has a solution! Create a custom Instagram embed at his site Embed Responsively. (Here’s an example of what it produces; narrow your browser width to see the responsiveness in action.) Jeff’s site will also make responsive-friendly custom embeds for YouTube, Vimeo, Google Maps, and more — check it out.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
People lie about going to church and aren’t sure what “rural” means: Highlights from the latest in public opinion research
Plus: Best practices for election forecasts, why people don’t vote, and the connection between media consumption and media trust.
Winter may be coming for HBO’s streaming subscriptions, but it doesn’t have to for your news organization
On the care and feeding of subscribers — and what happens when the thing they originally signed up for goes away.
The 016, a social network for Worcester, seeks to become a “delivery boy and booster” for local media
“You can create the best journalism, but if you can’t get it to an audience, this is a problem.”