|
|
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| I've been playing around with this for a few days and have finally come to
the conclusion that I need to downsize many of the photos from a max of
500px to 400px and will be working on that. I have another similar site
which uses frames for photo display and will be converting that over to CSS
in the future but I've been able to find very few photo display sites that
don't use frames, pop up windows, etc. If anyone can point me to a good
example of using CSS in a photo gallery scheme I would appreciate it.
In the meantime this site validates as xhtml strict and css compliant but I
would like a second set of eyes looking at it and comments would be
appreciated. My intent is to display the pics in a smooth "slideshow"
method and am trying to avoid the typical site with rows of thumbnails and
the requirement for the viewer to have to constantly use the "back" button.
There is no home page yet, I'm designing "backwards" (content first).
http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml
The CSS:
http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/gallery.css
Thanks
Andy
| |
|
|
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
"rf" <making.it.up@the.time> wrote in message
news:g5fqb.180232$bo1.68771@news-server.bigpond.net.au...quote:
>
> Use your browsers controls to make the font larger. Admire how the text
> overlaps when it wraps to two lines.
>
> You should never have to specify line-height, and never, ever,
line-height:quote:
> .5em;
>
> Cheers
> Richard.
>
>
Good point, I'll work on that. Thanks
| |
|
| Andy Vileta wrote:quote:
> I've been playing around with this for a few days and have finally come to
> the conclusion that I need to downsize many of the photos from a max of
> 500px to 400px and will be working on that.
The number of pixels is important, but you can also save
..jpg images at lower quality and reduce its size a lot.
The amount depends on the image, but I can usually get
away with 33% to 50% quality without losing anything
a human eye can easily pick up.
I have another similar sitequote:
> which uses frames for photo display and will be converting that over to CSS
> in the future but I've been able to find very few photo display sites that
> don't use frames, pop up windows, etc. If anyone can point me to a good
> example of using CSS in a photo gallery scheme I would appreciate it.
>
> In the meantime this site validates as xhtml strict and css compliant but I
> would like a second set of eyes looking at it and comments would be
> appreciated. My intent is to display the pics in a smooth "slideshow"
> method and am trying to avoid the typical site with rows of thumbnails and
> the requirement for the viewer to have to constantly use the "back" button.
>
What you deprive the viewer of, on the other hand, is random access
to the images. I've seen the site of exactly one photographer who was
so good that I felt willing to accept the ordering of his slideshow.
Generally, it just not a good idea.
quote:
> There is no home page yet, I'm designing "backwards" (content first).
>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml
>
> The CSS:
>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/gallery.css
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
>
--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb/
| |
| Mark Parnell 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Sometime around Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:08:16 GMT, m is reported to have
stated:quote:
>
> What you deprive the viewer of, on the other hand, is random access
> to the images. I've seen the site of exactly one photographer who was
> so good that I felt willing to accept the ordering of his slideshow.
> Generally, it just not a good idea.
>
I agree, and on that note I was going to point the OP to brucie's
butterflies, but they're gone!
Actually, alt-html.org is gone completely.
Brucie, where are you?
--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| quote:
>
> The number of pixels is important, but you can also save
> .jpg images at lower quality and reduce its size a lot.
> The amount depends on the image, but I can usually get
> away with 33% to 50% quality without losing anything
> a human eye can easily pick up.
I agree 100%. I have spent considerable time experimenting with file size
and compression ratios. Finding the happy medium isn't easy, but I rarely
put anything up over 100k, with most being around 35 - 50k.
quote:
>
>
> What you deprive the viewer of, on the other hand, is random access
> to the images. I've seen the site of exactly one photographer who was
> so good that I felt willing to accept the ordering of his slideshow.
> Generally, it just not a good idea.
The other site that I mentioned is oldbones.net which uses thumbs. I've
found that in almost every "gallery" it is the photos at the beginning that
are viewed the most, even when the best ones are at the end. On the other
hand I tend to want to see a thumbnail first myself and that is why I
certainly can't disagree with your statement. I may end up offering a
choice in the end result, perhaps a preview page.
Thanks so much, I bookmarked your site for reference.
Andy
| |
|
|
| gmcclary 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| "Andy Vileta" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote in message
news:MOeqb.5046$do1.1484929042@twister1.starband.net...quote:
> I've been playing around with this for a few days and have finally come to
> the conclusion that I need to downsize many of the photos from a max of
> 500px to 400px and will be working on that. I have another similar site
> which uses frames for photo display and will be converting that over to
CSSquote:
> in the future but I've been able to find very few photo display sites that
> don't use frames, pop up windows, etc. If anyone can point me to a good
> example of using CSS in a photo gallery scheme I would appreciate it.
>
> In the meantime this site validates as xhtml strict and css compliant but
Iquote:
> would like a second set of eyes looking at it and comments would be
> appreciated. My intent is to display the pics in a smooth "slideshow"
> method and am trying to avoid the typical site with rows of thumbnails and
> the requirement for the viewer to have to constantly use the "back"
button.quote:
>
> There is no home page yet, I'm designing "backwards" (content first).
>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml
>
> The CSS:
>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/gallery.css
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
>
Really like your page, and want to see more...
(However, IMHO, those colors (lime green and fermented puke green) really
suck!)
But, as I said, I look forward to seeing more of your selections.
Perhaps you could offer a "thumbs" page to those who insist on viewing just
the pictures "they" want to select, and a "guided tour" or slide show, to
visitors who would be content to sit back and allow you to be their tour
guide.
Glenn
| |
| Trevor George 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Andy Vileta wrote in message ...quote:
> I need to downsize many of the photos from a max of 500px to 400px
It's not only the 'Physical' size that needs working on, it's the 'optimisation' for web use. Your
main image is 160k on this page http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml when it could easily
be only 40K. People on dial-ups won't bother to look at your site if you don't correct that.
quote:
> I have another similar site which uses frames for photo display.
Do you mean 'tables'?
quote:
> My intent is to display the pics in a smooth "slideshow"
What happens if people don't want to see a slide-show, but just want to see a couple of individual
images enlarged?
quote:
> trying to avoid the typical site with rows of thumbnails and
> the requirement for the viewer to have to constantly use the "back" button.
Well at least that gives the customer the choice. The other option is a pop-up with the enlarged
image, which would need closing anyway.
Steve.
| |
| Steve R. 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Andy Vileta wrote in message ...quote:
> I need to downsize many of the photos from a max of 500px to 400px
It's not only the 'Physical' size that needs working on, it's the 'optimisation' for web use. Your
main image is 160k on this page http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml when it could easily
be only 40K. People on dial-ups won't bother to look at your site if you don't correct that.
quote:
> I have another similar site which uses frames for photo display.
Do you mean 'tables'?
quote:
> My intent is to display the pics in a smooth "slideshow"
What happens if people don't want to see a slide-show, but just want to see a couple of individual
images enlarged?
quote:
> trying to avoid the typical site with rows of thumbnails and
> the requirement for the viewer to have to constantly use the "back" button.
Well at least that gives the customer the choice. The other option is a pop-up with the enlarged
image, which would need closing anyway.
Steve.
| |
| David Graham 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
quote:
> I agree, and on that note I was going to point the OP to brucie's
> butterflies, but they're gone!
>
> Actually, alt-html.org is gone completely.
>
> Brucie, where are you?
>
> --
> Mark Parnell
> http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Yes, its a pity he has gone - my PHP skills benefited a lot from his
examples. I could kick myself for not saving his butterflies example. Has
anyone in the group saved this anywhere - I would really like to get my
hands on his PHP script.
David
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Quoth the raven named David Graham:quote:
>
>
> Yes, its a pity he has gone - my PHP skills benefited a lot from his
> examples. I could kick myself for not saving his butterflies example. Has
> anyone in the group saved this anywhere - I would really like to get my
> hands on his PHP script.
I saved a copy of the butterflies script, albeit without the images.
I'll post it here as a text file:
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagn...butterflies.txt
I didn't save the balls script. :-(
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Thanks for the comment. You've got me wondering what would be better than
blue? My only rational for using it is that it seems to be what most people
are looking for.
Andy
"Farlo" <hall.j.m@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942ABECBF794Ahalljmattnet@68.12.19.6...quote:
> "Andy Vileta" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote:
>
>
> The blue text links are awful, but i really liked the general look of the
> page.
>
> --
> Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| quote:
>
> Really like your page, and want to see more...
>
> (However, IMHO, those colors (lime green and fermented puke green) really
> suck!)
>
> But, as I said, I look forward to seeing more of your selections.
>
> Perhaps you could offer a "thumbs" page to those who insist on viewing
justquote:
> the pictures "they" want to select, and a "guided tour" or slide show, to
> visitors who would be content to sit back and allow you to be their tour
> guide.
>
> Glenn
I like your description of the colors. I've considered gravestone gray and
some others but can't quite get a grasp on what says "cemetery".
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
"Trevor George" <trevorgeorge@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nLnqb.1763$UH6.15344809@news-text.cableinet.net...quote:
> It's not only the 'Physical' size that needs working on, it's the
'optimisation' for web use. Yourquote:
> main image is 160k on this page
http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml when it could easilyquote:
> be only 40K. People on dial-ups won't bother to look at your site if you
don't correct that.
Agree, the images that I used to create the prototype were the ones that I
planned to use as a popup.
quote:
>
>
> Do you mean 'tables'?
No, two frames with thumbs in one with the full size targeted in the other.quote:
>
>
> What happens if people don't want to see a slide-show, but just want to
see a couple of individualquote:
> images enlarged?
That's what I addressed in my original concept using an iframe and pop-up;
http://amazinggraves.comquote:
>
button.[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> Well at least that gives the customer the choice. The other option is a
pop-up with the enlargedquote:
> image, which would need closing anyway.
Yep, it seems there's no perfect way but if I find I'll use it.
Thanks for the comments.
Andy
quote:
>
> Steve.
>
>
| |
| Nico Schuyt 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Steve R. wrote:quote:
> It's not only the 'Physical' size that needs working on, it's the
> 'optimisation' for web use. Your main image is 160k on this page
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml when it could easily
> be only 40K.
Can you show me that 40K-picture? When I optimize it to that size in PSP the
quality is no longer acceptable for a photo
(http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/test/00006_psp.jpg).
Nico
| |
| Nico Schuyt 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Andy Vileta wrote:quote:
> "Trevor George" wrote
quote:
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> No, two frames with thumbs in one with the full size targeted in the
> other.
The best way for a gallery :-)
I tried a couple of times to do it with CSS but the result is still not
acceptable: http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/album/
Nico
| |
|
|
"Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3faabf89$0$224$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl...quote:
> Andy Vileta wrote:
>
>
>
> The best way for a gallery :-)
> I tried a couple of times to do it with CSS but the result is still not
> acceptable: http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/album/
Do you own *all* of those kids Nico? It's a wonder you have time to produce
*any* html :-)
Cheers
Richard.
| |
| Steve R. 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Nico Schuyt wrote in message ...quote:
> Can you show me that 40K-picture? When I optimize it to that size in PSP the
> quality is no longer acceptable for a photo
> (http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/test/00006_psp.jpg).
I'd have used a little 'unsharp mask' as well, then it would be fine for web-viewing.
It depends what you translate as acceptable. I feel that 40K image is acceptable on the page, if it
means I see the image, rather than hitting the 'close' button because of having to wait too long.
Around 70 per-cent of world-wide users are still on dial-ups, so they *must* be considered :~)
| |
| William Tasso 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Reply-To: "William Tasso" <news27@tbdata.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-43-146-37.cable.ubr02.newm.blueyonder.co.uk (82.43.146.37)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068157449 47154288 82.43.146.37 (16 [139074])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1123
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1123
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com alt.html.critique:45485
rf wrote:quote:
> "Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3faabf89$0$224$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl...
>
> Do you own *all* of those kids Nico? It's a wonder you have time to
> produce *any* html :-)
Heh
One never 'owns' kids. We are merely hosts to the charming parasites.
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
| |
|
| "Andy Vileta" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote:
quote:
> Thanks for the comment. You've got me wondering what would be better
> than blue? My only rational for using it is that it seems to be what
> most people are looking for.
Use black or dark grey (almost black) or even the lighter green color. Some
of your links use black already. Be consistent.
The goal is to highlight the link without making it too obtrusive. Blue is
just too bright.
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
| |
|
| "Andy Vileta" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote:
quote:
> I've considered gravestone gray and
> some others but can't quite get a grasp on what says "cemetery".
Take a definitive photo of a graveyard. It will be greens and greys,
mostly, plus maybe blues. Use the mosaic filter to make tiles 40 pixels
across. That's your palette.
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
"Steve R." <stevie_ritchieNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Iwzqb.2573$L55.21296301@news-text.cableinet.net...quote:
> I'd have used a little 'unsharp mask' as well, then it would be fine for
web-viewing.quote:
>
> It depends what you translate as acceptable. I feel that 40K image is
acceptable on the page, if itquote:
> means I see the image, rather than hitting the 'close' button because of
having to wait too long.quote:
>
> Around 70 per-cent of world-wide users are still on dial-ups, so they
*must* be considered :~)
The problem with that particular image is the background. Too many color
changes. I resized it down to 400px wide and 25% compression in PSP and
came up 49k. I noticed that even at 1% more there was serious damage to the
statue itself. I started to reduce the contrast and color in the background
but my wife wouldn't let me. It's a flower thing I guess.
| |
| Andy Vileta 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
"Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3faabf89$0$224$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl...quote:
>
> The best way for a gallery :-)
> I tried a couple of times to do it with CSS but the result is still not
> acceptable: http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/album/
>
> Nico
Nice pics. That's almost exactly what I'm using at oldbones.net. Problem
is the search engines frown on frames, even with a little java script.
Looks horrible on webtv too.
| |
| kchayka 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Andy Vileta wrote:quote:
>
> Looks horrible on webtv too.
Doesn't everything? :)
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
| |
| Nico Schuyt 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
| Andy Vileta wrote:quote:
> Nico Schuyt wrote
quote:
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> Problem is the search engines frown on frames,
Ehhh, the (test)site on the link is not built with frames :-)
Anyway, problems with indexing by SE's is maybe even an advantage because
people don't want their pictures to be found individually.
Nico
| |
| David Graham 2003-12-03, 7:26 pm |
|
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:i0vqb.12955$1N3.355@twister.nyroc.rr.com...quote:
> Quoth the raven named David Graham:
>
> I didn't save the balls script. :-(
>
Hi
Thanks for the script. I have Brucies balls script
http://p0c79.phpwebhosting.com/~p0c...balls/balls.txt
All the stuff relating to it is in a folder
http://p0c79.phpwebhosting.com/~p0c79/brucies%20balls/
Unfortunately, I've managed to get formatting stuff all over balls.txt -
like <font> etc. Must have saved it wrong. I saved it with Opera (File -
save with images). It all works on my local PC but the links in the pages
for altering the style need fixing to get them to work at my host site.
HTH
David
| |
|
|
|
|
| gmanon 2003-12-03, 7:27 pm |
| It looks like a sphp file to me.
Guillermina
David Graham wrote:quote:
> "Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.11.08.00.22.11.94887@goddamn.co.uk...
>
>
> Thanks Toby
> I saved as .html, its available at
> http://p0c79.phpwebhosting.com/~p0c...alls/balls.html
>
> regards
> David
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |