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" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote in message
news:MOeqb.5046$do1.1484929042@twister1.starband.net...
quote:

>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml
>
> The CSS:
>
> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/gallery.css


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:
.5em;

Cheers
Richard.

"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 site
quote:

> which uses frames for photo display and will be converting that over to CS
S
> 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/

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

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

"Andy Vileta" <andy@oldbones.net> wrote:
quote:

> http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml


The blue text links are awful, but i really liked the general look of the
page.

--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

"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

CSS
quote:

> 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
quote:

> 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

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 'optimisat
ion' for web use. Your
main image is 160k on this page [url]http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml[/ur
l] 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.[/QUOTE
]

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.

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 'optimisat
ion' for web use. Your
main image is 160k on this page [url]http://amazinggraves.com/htm/pages/00006.shtml[/ur
l] 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.[/QUOTE
]

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.