Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Current thinking (long)

Reply
Thread Tools

Current thinking (long)

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2010
In article <4d0a9cfa$0$41117$(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>,
"Rob W." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Op 16-12-2010 23:43, dorayme schreef:
> > In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Jim S<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.

> >
> > Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
> > and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
> > they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
> > and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
> > folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
> > facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
> > the equator.
> >

>
>
> <speaking up>
> Maybe it's not the Equator, maybe it's the Greenwich Meridian. I'm just
> east of it.
> </speaking up>


It was about latitude, not longitude. And, besides this little
detail, there was an implied suggestion that things relevant to
settle the question of whether the equator has anything to do
with the communication, as received south of it, needed to be
offered.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jim S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:50:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:

> In article <4d0a9cfa$0$41117$(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>,
> "Rob W." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Op 16-12-2010 23:43, dorayme schreef:
>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Jim S<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never make myself clear to you. It must be the equator.
>>>
>>> Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
>>> and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
>>> they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
>>> and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
>>> folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
>>> facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
>>> the equator.
>>>

>>
>>
>> <speaking up>
>> Maybe it's not the Equator, maybe it's the Greenwich Meridian. I'm just
>> east of it.
>> </speaking up>

>
> It was about latitude, not longitude. And, besides this little
> detail, there was an implied suggestion that things relevant to
> settle the question of whether the equator has anything to do
> with the communication, as received south of it, needed to be
> offered.


Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on a
mobile or my mobile anyhoo.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
Jim S wrote:

> Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
> The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
> a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.


It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
wrong with your server?

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
In article <ieefdi$6uj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jim S wrote:
>
> > Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
> > The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
> > a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.

>
> It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
> wrong with your server?


Took 10 secs on mine. One of the pics is a reasonable 78K,
another is unreasonable at 228K, have not checked the others.
Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:46 +1100, dorayme wrote:

> In article <ieefdi$6uj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Jim S wrote:
>>
>>> Now you can see why I just went ahead and tried it.
>>> The big page with lots of pictures does take a long time to load uo on
>>> a mobile or my mobile anyhoo.

>>
>> It took over a minute on my 13Mbps cable connection as well. Something
>> wrong with your server?

>
> Took 10 secs on mine. One of the pics is a reasonable 78K,
> another is unreasonable at 228K, have not checked the others.
> Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!


One last try, before I come down there and show/thump you.

Currently if I click on the St Mary's Island thumbnail on the home page I
get a new thumbnail page:
http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/S...humbnails.html

(Apart from the 1st one Curry's Point) if I now click on a thumbnail, it
takes me to a page with ONE picture on it and this page leads to the next
or back to the thumbnail page.

My new alternative would be to do away with the individual photo pages and
only have one page with all the photos on it - like the one you now get if
you click on the Curry's Point thumbnail.

Geddit?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
In article <1oar98q7wqshk$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:46 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>

....

> > Wish I knew what exactly Jim's question was. I still don't!

>
> One last try, before I come down there and show/thump you.
>
> Currently if I click on the St Mary's Island thumbnail on the home page I
> get a new thumbnail page:
> http://www.jimscott.co.uk/St_Marys/S...humbnails.html
>
> (Apart from the 1st one Curry's Point) if I now click on a thumbnail, it
> takes me to a page with ONE picture on it and this page leads to the next
> or back to the thumbnail page.
>
> My new alternative would be to do away with the individual photo pages and
> only have one page with all the photos on it - like the one you now get if
> you click on the Curry's Point thumbnail.
>
> Geddit?


Yes, I ged the two alternatives you are wrestling with now. To
avoid you coming over and thumping me, the pleasure of you being
so honest in the threat being entertainment enough for me, I will
venture forth on the matter with confidence.

It does not matter if there is just one enlarged pic or just a
few on a page, as long as the total loads fast. If you have 4 or
5 pics about 70K, these days, that is fair enough and you would
do this if it is convenient. If a group of pics are related, it
is a good reason, the user just can scroll, he or she will
probably be looking at the first one while others load.

There is *no firm rule* on this and it depends: in your case, I
noticed that one of your pics was over 200k. If you are going to
prepare pics that big in file size, then that is an argument for
not many, maybe just one on a page. That said, all the others
look reasonable and I note you have improved in image preparation
from years back.

If you have a lot of related enlargements, consider making them
not quite so large in px size (which brings down the file size)
for the benefit of them being together on a page. Try not to have
a whole MB on a page (as you do), that is getting a bit big but
perhaps I am old fashioned.

If big is very important, you can make each normal 350 to 600px
enlargement a link to an even larger. No messing about: just make
a folder called "biggest" and stick in your 800 to 1000px wide
versions there on the server and simply link like:

<a href="biggest/lighthouse.jpg" title="see a bigger version
still if you like"><img src="big/lighthouse.jpg" alt=""></a>

No need for any special page for the biggest, the browser will
simply display the pic starting in top left corner. Most people
would likely be satisfied with your 300 to 600px versions, the
*biggest* just being an extra.

Just btw, it is a very handy thing to have the different sizes in
different folders because all the files can have the same names,
a big saving in construction. It is also very handy in how it
ties in with batch image prep. You start with the biggest, and
instruct the image program to make smaller versions and to put
them in a different folder. Not having to worry about the file
names is a big gain, the folder on the server will identify the
thumbs from the normal enlargements from the super sized ones.

3. Do consider - yeah I know, I risk being thumped again - some
handy html/css for pics and captions. There is no point in not
taking advantage of the fabulous inline-block css for creating
flexible pic/captions if you are going to have more than one pic
and caption per page, take advantage of the direction you are
going in. Get with the program as my daughter says!

Something like this is what I have done and it is terrific when
people have big wide screens, they often do not have to scroll.
They send me gifts (anyone want some stuffed Teddy Bears?)
because they are finally getting value from their monitor
investments.

This is roughly how for both thumbnail pages and medium
enlargement pages:

<style type="text/css" media="screen">
div {padding: 0; display: inline-block; margin: 1em 2em 1em 0;}
div div {padding: 0; margin: 0;}
div img {display: block; border: 2px ridge #ccc;}
</style>

<!-- support IE 6/7 -->
<!--[if lt IE 8]>
<style type="text/css">
div {
display: inline;
zoom: 1;
}
</style>
<![endif]-->

<div>
<img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
<div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
</div>

<div>
<img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
<div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
</div>

<div>
<img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
<div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
</div>

There are improvements you can add but this is the basic.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
>>
>> Geddit?

>
> Yes, I ged the two alternatives you are wrestling with now. To
> avoid you coming over and thumping me, the pleasure of you being
> so honest in the threat being entertainment enough for me, I will
> venture forth on the matter with confidence.
>
> It does not matter if there is just one enlarged pic or just a
> few on a page, as long as the total loads fast. If you have 4 or
> 5 pics about 70K, these days, that is fair enough and you would
> do this if it is convenient. If a group of pics are related, it
> is a good reason, the user just can scroll, he or she will
> probably be looking at the first one while others load.
>
> There is *no firm rule* on this and it depends: in your case, I
> noticed that one of your pics was over 200k. If you are going to
> prepare pics that big in file size, then that is an argument for
> not many, maybe just one on a page. That said, all the others
> look reasonable and I note you have improved in image preparation
> from years back.
>
> If you have a lot of related enlargements, consider making them
> not quite so large in px size (which brings down the file size)
> for the benefit of them being together on a page. Try not to have
> a whole MB on a page (as you do), that is getting a bit big but
> perhaps I am old fashioned.
>
> If big is very important, you can make each normal 350 to 600px
> enlargement a link to an even larger. No messing about: just make
> a folder called "biggest" and stick in your 800 to 1000px wide
> versions there on the server and simply link like:
>
> <a href="biggest/lighthouse.jpg" title="see a bigger version
> still if you like"><img src="big/lighthouse.jpg" alt=""></a>
>
> No need for any special page for the biggest, the browser will
> simply display the pic starting in top left corner. Most people
> would likely be satisfied with your 300 to 600px versions, the
> *biggest* just being an extra.
>
> Just btw, it is a very handy thing to have the different sizes in
> different folders because all the files can have the same names,
> a big saving in construction. It is also very handy in how it
> ties in with batch image prep. You start with the biggest, and
> instruct the image program to make smaller versions and to put
> them in a different folder. Not having to worry about the file
> names is a big gain, the folder on the server will identify the
> thumbs from the normal enlargements from the super sized ones.
>
> 3. Do consider - yeah I know, I risk being thumped again - some
> handy html/css for pics and captions. There is no point in not
> taking advantage of the fabulous inline-block css for creating
> flexible pic/captions if you are going to have more than one pic
> and caption per page, take advantage of the direction you are
> going in. Get with the program as my daughter says!
>
> Something like this is what I have done and it is terrific when
> people have big wide screens, they often do not have to scroll.
> They send me gifts (anyone want some stuffed Teddy Bears?)
> because they are finally getting value from their monitor
> investments.
>
> This is roughly how for both thumbnail pages and medium
> enlargement pages:
>
> <style type="text/css" media="screen">
> div {padding: 0; display: inline-block; margin: 1em 2em 1em 0;}
> div div {padding: 0; margin: 0;}
> div img {display: block; border: 2px ridge #ccc;}
> </style>
>
> <!-- support IE 6/7 -->
> <!--[if lt IE 8]>
> <style type="text/css">
> div {
> display: inline;
> zoom: 1;
> }
> </style>
> <![endif]-->
>
> <div>
> <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
> <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
> </div>
>
> <div>
> <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
> <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
> </div>
>
> <div>
> <img src="pics/big/...jpg" alt="">
> <div style="width: picWidthpx">Caption...</div>
> </div>
>
> There are improvements you can add but this is the basic.


Thanks d.
I'll look into the big picture thingy.
However my idea if putting all the pictures in one folder was NOT one of my
best ideas because it ceases to be reasonable where there are scores of
pictures in a folder. (I guess I already knew that).
My maximum height/width combination of 460/840 stems from assuming some
folks still operate on 800 x 600 screens and so I can get a caption in
without scrolling down (much). Having said that, my local library uses a
setup where my 610 wide images fill their big screens.
I have been playing with the CSS button size so it doesn't look daft on a
desktop, but is big enough for a mobile touch screen.
Now to find the picture that she was banging on about being 220k+
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
notbob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
On 2010-12-17, Jim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'll look into the big picture thingy.


I'm hardly one to be giving advice, being so new to the html/css
thing, but I did run across this, last night. Perhaps it may be of
help with some alternate ideas:

http://www.webreference.com/programm...ry2/index.html

nb
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
notbob wrote:

> Jim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I'll look into the big picture thingy.

>
> I'm hardly one to be giving advice, being so new to the html/css
> thing, but I did run across this, last night. Perhaps it may be of
> help with some alternate ideas:
>
> <http://www.webreference.com/programming/css_gallery2/index.html>


There are some thought-provoking ideas shown there which might help with
design processes. However, the author recommends XHTML and does not
specify either Strict or Transitional. See "Section 2 The !DOCTYPE".
Then he states "I use XHTML1.1 for all my current web pages." but the
page itself uses HTML 4.01 Transitional. <lol!>

I'd recommend using HTML 4.01 Strict.
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2010
On 17 Dec 2010 14:40:36 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2010-12-17, Jim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I'll look into the big picture thingy.

>
> I'm hardly one to be giving advice, being so new to the html/css
> thing, but I did run across this, last night. Perhaps it may be of
> help with some alternate ideas:
>
> http://www.webreference.com/programm...ry2/index.html
>
> nb


My problem is that my groups need text and my large pictures need captions.

I'm coming round to thinking I had got it more or less right and if I can
get the thumbnails so they are big enought to touch, but not so big that
they look silly on a desktop..
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linear thinking vs essential thinking optimistx Javascript 4 10-29-2009 04:19 PM
Current thinking on logging? Chris Java 7 11-29-2006 02:49 PM
XP vs 98 current thinking? Jim Scott Computer Support 50 07-12-2004 02:44 PM
WHY?!? Why am i thinking i need an SLR, and thinking of going 35mm? Steven C \(Doktersteve\) Digital Photography 13 02-13-2004 08:42 PM
How to change the current thread current culture at run time. Manu ASP .Net 1 07-20-2003 03:27 PM



Advertisments