Trying a new format... can you check it for me?
Discussion
Ta in adavance.
Rather than the 'thumbs' way of showing pics (where I've discovered that people hardly ever follow the link to the big version), a few years back, I went the '10 or 12 decent size pics' route for various galleries. (With a warning that modem users would have to wait a while).
Now that so many are going broadband, and most of the world is now viewing at 1024 x 768 min (see a previous thread in the PH computer forum), I'm trying a 'slideshow' format, showing pics at 900 x 598 - and a next button.
This needs 1024 x 768 and maximises the viewing area for impact...
BUT:
Some browsers have fancy toolbars (google etc) which compromise the 768 bit of the equasion sinking the whole idea.
SO:
Best way to find out if it works is to ask a load of sad gits with too much time on their hands.
to check out this link and tell me if the pic/next button is falling off the bottom of the screen? If so, I'll have to reduce size of the pic. (boo) - and possibly even go back to 'thumbs' as at least it's not a chore any more with bradband to follow links.
Again... thanks in advance.
Steve
Link:>> www.stevecarter.com/2005/2005-0.htm
Rather than the 'thumbs' way of showing pics (where I've discovered that people hardly ever follow the link to the big version), a few years back, I went the '10 or 12 decent size pics' route for various galleries. (With a warning that modem users would have to wait a while).
Now that so many are going broadband, and most of the world is now viewing at 1024 x 768 min (see a previous thread in the PH computer forum), I'm trying a 'slideshow' format, showing pics at 900 x 598 - and a next button.
This needs 1024 x 768 and maximises the viewing area for impact...
BUT:
Some browsers have fancy toolbars (google etc) which compromise the 768 bit of the equasion sinking the whole idea.
SO:
Best way to find out if it works is to ask a load of sad gits with too much time on their hands.
to check out this link and tell me if the pic/next button is falling off the bottom of the screen? If so, I'll have to reduce size of the pic. (boo) - and possibly even go back to 'thumbs' as at least it's not a chore any more with bradband to follow links. Again... thanks in advance.
Steve
Link:>> www.stevecarter.com/2005/2005-0.htm
For me the next button remains on the bottom right side of the picture rather than underneath it - which I think works well.
What you might consider is giving the option to click on the image itself to progress to the next slide - this way you don't have to worry about a "next" button. If the first slide says "click on the image to see the next slide" that should do fine?
What you might consider is giving the option to click on the image itself to progress to the next slide - this way you don't have to worry about a "next" button. If the first slide says "click on the image to see the next slide" that should do fine?
Works fine for me on my 1024x768 laptop using IE.
However, I did note the following:
1. when I clicked on your link, it happened to open an unmaximised window - maybe a comment to tell people to maximise their windows might help, you never know how intelligent people are.
2. If people have additional toolbars enabled on their browser, then the viewable pane will be smaller (pushed down the screen). This may explain why some people with 1024x768 secreens are not seeing the whole image, maybe put the 'next' at the top right, not the bottom...
Great shots as always.
Joe.
However, I did note the following:
1. when I clicked on your link, it happened to open an unmaximised window - maybe a comment to tell people to maximise their windows might help, you never know how intelligent people are.
2. If people have additional toolbars enabled on their browser, then the viewable pane will be smaller (pushed down the screen). This may explain why some people with 1024x768 secreens are not seeing the whole image, maybe put the 'next' at the top right, not the bottom...
Great shots as always.
Joe.
Because you've got two elements, if the browser is narrower than (width obj1) + (width obj2), it will wrap the objects.
You could get round it by defining a centered table of 1024 pixels and having your objects within it. Becuase it's size is absolute, the table become the definition for wrapping rather than the screen.
{CENTER}
{TABLE WIDTH="1024"}
{TD align="center"}
{img src="00.jpg" width="900" height="597"}{a href="2005-1.htm"}{img src="next1.jpg" width="38" height="100" border="0"}{/a}
{/TD}
{/CENTER}
This has the unwanted effect of introducing horizontal scrolling to those with narrow desktops or non maximised browsers. But on the other hand, you did warn them.
Tee other alternative would be to introduce a screen res check in at the top of your pages and present different images based on the outcome.
(I too have pondered this... offer small thumbs so they have to follow to see bigger, offer large thumbs and no on clicks through, offer no thumbs mid images - looks rubbish, offer large image no thumbs - no one gets past five.
I really should be worrying about other things....
)
You could get round it by defining a centered table of 1024 pixels and having your objects within it. Becuase it's size is absolute, the table become the definition for wrapping rather than the screen.
{CENTER}
{TABLE WIDTH="1024"}
{TD align="center"}
{img src="00.jpg" width="900" height="597"}{a href="2005-1.htm"}{img src="next1.jpg" width="38" height="100" border="0"}{/a}
{/TD}
{/CENTER}
This has the unwanted effect of introducing horizontal scrolling to those with narrow desktops or non maximised browsers. But on the other hand, you did warn them.
Tee other alternative would be to introduce a screen res check in at the top of your pages and present different images based on the outcome.
(I too have pondered this... offer small thumbs so they have to follow to see bigger, offer large thumbs and no on clicks through, offer no thumbs mid images - looks rubbish, offer large image no thumbs - no one gets past five.
I really should be worrying about other things....
)It works well here (anyone running less than 1024x768 should be killed and eaten).
The pix appear pretty fast (512Kb connection) although they're at the top of the screen; I think middle would look better.
However I prefer the thumbnail route, sorry! With the slideshow method you don't know whether it's worth waiting for one you like to appear. You know what all the pix are but viewers don't. So how about an option, eg 'A) Thumbnail gallery B) Slideshow'?
The pix appear pretty fast (512Kb connection) although they're at the top of the screen; I think middle would look better.
However I prefer the thumbnail route, sorry! With the slideshow method you don't know whether it's worth waiting for one you like to appear. You know what all the pix are but viewers don't. So how about an option, eg 'A) Thumbnail gallery B) Slideshow'?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff