Re: The Park of the Wall

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, May 9, 2011.

  1. On Monday, May 9, 2011 4:14:33 PM UTC-5, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 May 2011 08:50:58 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >
    > >[...]
    > >> --
    > >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    > >
    > >I think I've narrowed the "problem" to this --
    > >I choose to make my browser about 1/2 screen width
    > >on my 24" 19:10 screen. Most sites, new or old, design
    > >for about this screen width. Leaving the browser width
    > >full across the large screen will introduce anomalies with
    > >many sites, like having a lot of "dead" space at the sides,
    > >needed long horizontal scrolling, the splitting of parts, or
    > >"endless" text lines... I see no need to redesign the web
    > >site for your decision not to narrow your browser width
    > >to something more reasonable. As is, the photos under
    > >discussion still serve their original purpose well (and
    > >appear even sharper on LCDs than they did on CRTs),
    > >but, of course, YMMV...;-) BTW, you probably
    > >discovered that all the pages cited in my earlier post have
    > >multiple photos on each, requiring (GASP! 8^) vertical
    > >scrolling to view them all...! ;-) We choose our browser
    > >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)
    > >--DR

    >
    > That's fine...it's your website and you should do whatever you want
    > with it.
    >
    > Funny, though, that you feel that the viewer should be responsible for
    > adjusting to what you present.


    I don't see how the user has to. His pages look perfectly reasonable
    to me both in my normal partial-screen browser window, and when I
    kick it up to full screen.

    He's presenting multiple pictures per page, which means I have to
    scroll vertically to see additional photos, but I prefer that
    to having to click and wait for each additional photo. Scrolling is
    fast and easy (vertically; I don't have to move my mouse anywhere
    more precise than inside the window, and then roll the wheel.

    > I think you could solve the problem by designating the images to be a
    > percent, rather than a fixed width, but I'm not into website design.


    Resizing the pictures on the fly in HTML? PLEASE don't do that! First,
    it encourages sending big jpeg files. Second, it tends to make
    bad images (small resampling adjustments don't work that well, and then
    not having custom sharpening afterwards is bad).

    > This is the first website I've ever come across where this is a
    > problem. The others adjust for widescreen monitors. I don't see
    > those anomalies or problems you refer to.


    Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
    ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
    that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
    something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
    a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.

    > >We choose our browser
    > >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)

    >
    > Really? Most people who post their photos on a website design it for
    > the *viewer*. Otherwise, what's the point? You have the images on
    > your computer for your viewing, so putting them up on the web is for
    > others to view.


    Yes, but we also all know, deep down inside, that everybody else
    is about like us. :)

    More seriously, for my personal site, I'm not going to make something
    I hate. I will probably make compromises to make sure it works
    tolerably to the standards of other people using other tools; but I won't
    do things I really despise. I suppose I might if it were a money-making
    site and I thought those compromises would net me a bunch of cash.
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 9, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Monday, May 9, 2011 4:14:33 PM UTC-5, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 9 May 2011 08:50:58 -0400, "David Ruether"
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...


    >> >[...]


    >> >> --
    >> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    >> >I think I've narrowed the "problem" to this --
    >> >I choose to make my browser about 1/2 screen width
    >> >on my 24" 19:10 screen. Most sites, new or old, design
    >> >for about this screen width. Leaving the browser width
    >> >full across the large screen will introduce anomalies with
    >> >many sites, like having a lot of "dead" space at the sides,
    >> >needed long horizontal scrolling, the splitting of parts, or
    >> >"endless" text lines... I see no need to redesign the web
    >> >site for your decision not to narrow your browser width
    >> >to something more reasonable. As is, the photos under
    >> >discussion still serve their original purpose well (and
    >> >appear even sharper on LCDs than they did on CRTs),
    >> >but, of course, YMMV...;-) BTW, you probably
    >> >discovered that all the pages cited in my earlier post have
    >> >multiple photos on each, requiring (GASP! 8^) vertical
    >> >scrolling to view them all...! ;-) We choose our browser
    >> >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)
    >> >--DR


    >> That's fine...it's your website and you should do whatever you want
    >> with it.
    >>
    >> Funny, though, that you feel that the viewer should be responsible for
    >> adjusting to what you present.


    > I don't see how the user has to. His pages look perfectly reasonable
    > to me both in my normal partial-screen browser window, and when I
    > kick it up to full screen.
    >
    > He's presenting multiple pictures per page, which means I have to
    > scroll vertically to see additional photos, but I prefer that
    > to having to click and wait for each additional photo. Scrolling is
    > fast and easy (vertically; I don't have to move my mouse anywhere
    > more precise than inside the window, and then roll the wheel.


    >> I think you could solve the problem by designating the images to be a
    >> percent, rather than a fixed width, but I'm not into website design.


    > Resizing the pictures on the fly in HTML? PLEASE don't do that! First,
    > it encourages sending big jpeg files. Second, it tends to make
    > bad images (small resampling adjustments don't work that well, and then
    > not having custom sharpening afterwards is bad).


    >> This is the first website I've ever come across where this is a
    >> problem. The others adjust for widescreen monitors. I don't see
    >> those anomalies or problems you refer to.


    > Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
    > ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
    > that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
    > something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
    > a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.


    >> >We choose our browser
    >> >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)


    >> Really? Most people who post their photos on a website design it for
    >> the *viewer*. Otherwise, what's the point? You have the images on
    >> your computer for your viewing, so putting them up on the web is for
    >> others to view.


    > Yes, but we also all know, deep down inside, that everybody else
    > is about like us. :)
    >
    > More seriously, for my personal site, I'm not going to make something
    > I hate. I will probably make compromises to make sure it works
    > tolerably to the standards of other people using other tools; but I won't
    > do things I really despise. I suppose I might if it were a money-making
    > site and I thought those compromises would net me a bunch of cash.


    Thanks for the comments (and "clarifications") - I had given up
    my exchanges with "tony" on this, since nothing more was being
    accomplished by my continuing with them. Your "second opinion"
    is useful (maybe...8^).
    --DR
    David Ruether, May 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > Resizing the pictures on the fly in HTML? PLEASE don't do that! First,
    > it encourages sending big jpeg files. Second, it tends to make
    > bad images (small resampling adjustments don't work that well, and then
    > not having custom sharpening afterwards is bad).


    Especially as browsers tend to resize by leaving out whole rows
    and columns of pixels, not by properly scaling the image.
    Looks terrible --- and different browsers do it differently.

    > Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
    > ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
    > that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
    > something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
    > a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.


    Smugmug?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 17, 2011
    #3
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 17 May 2011 17:46:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> Resizing the pictures on the fly in HTML? PLEASE don't do that! First,
    >> it encourages sending big jpeg files. Second, it tends to make
    >> bad images (small resampling adjustments don't work that well, and then
    >> not having custom sharpening afterwards is bad).

    >
    >Especially as browsers tend to resize by leaving out whole rows
    >and columns of pixels, not by properly scaling the image.
    >Looks terrible --- and different browsers do it differently.
    >
    >> Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
    >> ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
    >> that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
    >> something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
    >> a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.

    >
    >Smugmug?


    I have a SmugMug site and a wide-screen monitor. I've never noticed a
    problem viewing other people's SmugMug sites, and I do open sites
    frequently from SmugMug.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 18, 2011
    #4
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:21:15 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:46:43 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    >> > Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
    >> > ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
    >> > that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
    >> > something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
    >> > a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.

    >>
    >> Smugmug?

    >
    >They're generally better than Flickr at everything, anyway. I don't
    >remember...poking around...Okay, interesting. This may be partly
    >dependent on "skin" and I'm just using whatever is the default. What
    >I see when I go in to look at a group of photos is a thumbnail area on
    >the left, three pictures wide and however tall is needed, and a big
    >image of whatever thumbnail I select on the right. When I make a
    >drastic change of window size, the general layout remains the same,
    >but everything gets bigger.
    >
    >I cannot POSSIBLY call that "not adjusting to window width",
    >obviously. It doesn't suit my preferences, though; I want the
    >thumbnails to be a fixed size, and then display however many fit in
    >the available space. Still, that's solidly in the area of personal
    >preferences, not right vs. wrong.


    With SmugMug...I assume you know that you can double-click on the
    large image to the right and enlarge it to near full-screen, and then
    use the arrow keys to advance to the next image in near full-screen
    size. Unless you want to select particular images from the
    thumbnails, you can go through the entire gallery viewing the near
    full-screen size images.

    This gives a larger view of landscape-formatted images, but doesn't do
    much for portrait-formatted images.

    Since I view on a wide-screen monitor, what I see are "near
    full-screen" views doing the above. On a standard monitor, they may
    be full-screen.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 18, 2011
    #5
  6. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 18 May 2011 15:32:40 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >Yeah, vertical space is the big problem (on the monitor) for most
    >photographic stuff these days, with everything going to stupid
    >widescreen. Useless shape!
    >
    >Well, one *can* swivel the monitor with most modern graphics
    >cards and monitor stands; but now it's far too tall. Just
    >can't win. It's a stupid shape.


    I chose a widescreen because I use Adobe Photoshop quite a bit. I can
    open several palettes, keep the on the sides, and not have them
    infringe on the working space for the image. I also find that it
    allows me to see more thumbnails across when using Lightroom or
    FastStone's image viewer.

    I could never go back. I would like to try a swivel widescreen and
    see if I can utilize the top and bottom space when the monitor is
    placed in portrait view.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 19, 2011
    #6
  7. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 18 May 2011 18:52:44 -0700, "Frank S" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 18 May 2011 15:32:40 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Yeah, vertical space is the big problem (on the monitor) for most
    >>>photographic stuff these days, with everything going to stupid
    >>>widescreen. Useless shape!
    >>>
    >>>Well, one *can* swivel the monitor with most modern graphics
    >>>cards and monitor stands; but now it's far too tall. Just
    >>>can't win. It's a stupid shape.

    >>
    >> I chose a widescreen because I use Adobe Photoshop quite a bit. I can
    >> open several palettes, keep the on the sides, and not have them
    >> infringe on the working space for the image. I also find that it
    >> allows me to see more thumbnails across when using Lightroom or
    >> FastStone's image viewer.
    >>
    >> I could never go back. I would like to try a swivel widescreen and
    >> see if I can utilize the top and bottom space when the monitor is
    >> placed in portrait view.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I have a wide-screen monitor and a newer Win7 computer. I'm under the
    >impression that it's possible - even easy - to connect up to three monitors
    >to the outputs on the back of the box.
    >
    >http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5735039137_5223a93c34_o.jpg
    >
    >Thinking about a second monitor oriented for portrait viewing since it seems
    >that causing the tools to appear on one screen and the workspace on the
    >other would solve a number of screen-space problems; wouldn't do much for
    >the skills and talents aspect, but it would make assigning responsibility
    >for successes and failures a bit easier?


    My son has two monitors in use. Both are landscape standard width,
    but he likes the arrangement.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 19, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cymbal Man Freq.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    934
    Uncle John
    Jun 4, 2005
  2. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    From tomorrow's Wall Street Journal

    Flatus Ohlfahrt, Dec 30, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
  3. mmyvusenet

    Park of the Wall

    mmyvusenet, Aug 7, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    285
    mmyvusenet
    Aug 10, 2010
  4. mmyvusenet

    The Park of the Wall

    mmyvusenet, May 6, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    768
    John Turco
    May 27, 2011
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: The Park of the Wall

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 19, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    227
    tony cooper
    May 19, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page