I am looking to spruce up our picture gallery. I've been looking at Lightbox and Highslide and can't really tell too much difference. Does anyone have any preferences or dislikes? Is there a better image viewer js out there?
On Apr 18, 11:36 am, "MC" <mica[removethis]@aisus.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am looking to spruce up our picture gallery. I've been looking at Lightbox > and Highslide and can't really tell too much difference. Does anyone have > any preferences or dislikes? Is there a better image viewer js out there?
AFAIK, "Lightbox" has become a generic term (like Kleenex.)
There's no need to compare any of the silly scripts that purport to center images in just over 50K. You won't "spruce up" anything with those (you will almost certainly degrade otherwise usable documents.)
> I am looking to spruce up our picture gallery. I've been looking at > Lightbox > and Highslide and can't really tell too much difference. Does anyone have > any preferences or dislikes? Is there a better image viewer js out there?
AFAIK, "Lightbox" has become a generic term (like Kleenex.)
There's no need to compare any of the silly scripts that purport to center images in just over 50K. You won't "spruce up" anything with those (you will almost certainly degrade otherwise usable documents.)
David, Your comments don't really help. I asked for a comparison and you dissed them both (without really explaing why). If you want to help, please explain your comment and if there is a better alternative. Lightbox and Highslide are already better than what we have now. MC
On Apr 18, 2:06 pm, "MC" <mica[removethis]@aisus.com> wrote:
[snip]
> David,
This is a newsgroup and you did not quote properly. See the FAQ.
> Your comments don't really help.
Do you find them unhelpful?
> I asked for a comparison and you dissed
This is not a help desk.
> them both (without really explaing why). If you want to help, please explain > your comment and if there is a better alternative. Lightbox and Highslide > are already better than what we have now.
What do you have now and what makes you think some fantasy script is going to make a better alternative?
David Mark wrote: > On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "MC" <mica[removethis]@aisus.com> wrote: >> Well if you just want to be a troll then just piss off...you must be one of >> pointy ears minions.
> So rather than quote properly, you abstained altogether. Rather than > answering my question, you skulked off.
And again my killfile rule worked as expected (`[' should not be part of the From name and MUST NOT be part of the From address.)
On Apr 18, 4:19 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> wrote:
> David Mark wrote: > > On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "MC" <mica[removethis]@aisus.com> wrote: > >> Well if you just want to be a troll then just piss off...you must be one of > >> pointy ears minions.
> > So rather than quote properly, you abstained altogether. Rather than > > answering my question, you skulked off.
> And again my killfile rule worked as expected (`[' should not be > part of the From name and MUST NOT be part of the From address.)
> If only nobody would quote those idiots, too ;-)
Oh well, one more twit demanding an instantaneous magical solution to a vaguely expressed dilemma, scuttling off to escape unhelpful "trolls." They'll likely end up in fantasy land where a fellow loser will advocate whatever uses jQuery.
Hi MC, I prefer Lightbox JS although its inconvenience is the need of using either Prototype or JQuery libraries. So I developed my own Javascript code emulating the LightBox model. Take a look at: http://www.jrfaq.com.br/lightbox.htm
> Hi MC, > I prefer Lightbox JS although its inconvenience is the need of using > either Prototype or JQuery libraries. So I developed my own Javascript > code emulating the LightBox model. Take a look at: > http://www.jrfaq.com.br/lightbox.htm
> Cheers, > Joao Rodrigues (JR)
Joao, Muinta bom photo! Eu amo Rio! I have taken this exact photo myself and one of the bay from the opposite side on Pao? Sugarloaf? mountain.
I will take a look at your code. I am not crazy about including Prototype or JQuery either. I dislike bloated libraries.
Ciao, MC PS. I should be back in Rio in June as I have family there. I really miss it. Do you have Orkut?
I've got to wonder why you think you need a "LightBox", but at least you tried. Unfortunately:
/* This code creates some layers (overlay, lightbox, etc.) to show an image, while fading the document viewport.
Code was built upon Lightbox JS, with many modifications by Joao Rodrigues for www.jrfaq.com.br - Jan2009. $version 0.3 - 2009-03-30
Inspired by the work of John Resig (jspro.org/files/code/09.zip), Peter-Paul Koch (quirksmode.org) and Lokesh Dhakar, creator of Lightbox JS: Fullsize Image Overlays - http://huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox
Three blind mice.
Dependencies: lightbox.css; ajax_circle1.gif; and close_20x20.gif
*/ function jrLightBoxObj() { this.init();
}
Your list of original inspirations left out Sam Stephenson. Resig is tantamount to Shemp.
jrLightBoxObj.prototype = {
[snip]
Sorry, no time. Just use HTML, at least until you learn the basics of browser scripting (and you cannot learn these basics from Resig and PPK.)
On Apr 18, 8:12 pm, JR <groups_j...@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> Hi David, > Ha ha ha! I was sure you would condemn the praise to John Resig and > PPK in the code comments.
I saw no praise. The implication that those stooges inspired your code is not exactly flattery.
> I'm afraid someday you will materialize your hatred in a massacre > during a JQuery Group's meeting (just kidding).
Hatred? I "hate" dandelions in my lawn in the same way. What has materialized is that they had a meeting a year back that went something like:
"Guys, you know all of that furious twiddling with UA detection that we've been keeping up for the last few years? It was all a complete waste of time. Turns out we *were* full of shit. Yeah, I know. The plan is to re-invent jQuery's browser detection using object inferences, adding random changes to everything else and releasing just prior to IE8. Just act natural and it will look like Microsoft ruined everything."
Buona sera, MC. Obrigado (Thanks) for the kind words. I've been to Rome in 2007 and, in general, I love Italy a lot, although not being able to speak Italian. Our languages have a common origin (Latin), as you know, but are very different nowadays.
Just a few loose ends to fix up. I'll link to your page at the bottom. I confess some of those packaged scripts were a little too bulky for me, and excessively featured.
> Hi MC, > I prefer Lightbox JS although its inconvenience is the need of using > either Prototype or JQuery libraries. So I developed my own Javascript > code emulating the LightBox model. Take a look at: http://www.jrfaq.com.br/lightbox.htm
On Apr 19, 1:36 am, "MC" <mica[removethis]@aisus.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am looking to spruce up our picture gallery. I've been looking at Lightbox > and Highslide and can't really tell too much difference. Does anyone have > any preferences or dislikes? Is there a better image viewer js out there?
You may get answers from a jQuery or Prototype.js group. I dislike the "lightbox" effect - it is slow and annoying, so I don't use it, nor do I frequent sites that use similar effects.
If you want to link to a bigger image, do it. Let users open it in a different tab or window if they want and save yourself a lot of grief trying to support different browsers and annoying visitors.
As a user, I completely agree. However as a webmaster I was forced to make the page harder to use. Each page load was hitting me with 10MB, and the page was getting tremendously popular. Not wanting to go into bandwidth overtime, I had to put obstacles in the way of viewing the high-quality photos. So the modal window is all about forcing the user to work, and therefore reducing the bandwidth.
Gnarlodious wrote: > As a user, I completely agree. However as a webmaster I was forced to > make the page harder to use. Each page load was hitting me with 10MB, > and the page was getting tremendously popular. Not wanting to go into > bandwidth overtime, I had to put obstacles in the way of viewing the > high-quality photos. So the modal window is all about forcing the user > to work, and therefore reducing the bandwidth.
For this you let the user download 13 KiB more than they would have had to download if you had not "put the obstacle in the way". Every time the document is loaded and the script is not cached.
> Gnarlodious wrote: >> As a user, I completely agree. However as a webmaster I was forced to >> make the page harder to use. Each page load was hitting me with 10MB, >> and the page was getting tremendously popular. Not wanting to go into >> bandwidth overtime, I had to put obstacles in the way of viewing the >> high-quality photos. So the modal window is all about forcing the user >> to work, and therefore reducing the bandwidth.
> For this you let the user download 13 KiB more than they would have had to > download if you had not "put the obstacle in the way". Every time the > document is loaded and the script is not cached.
> PointedEars
Hmm, 13kb vs 10mb seems like a sweet trade to me Gnarly dude. MC
On Apr 19, 8:48 am, Gnarlodious <gnarlodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a user, I completely agree. However as a webmaster I was forced to > make the page harder to use. Each page load was hitting me with 10MB, > and the page was getting tremendously popular. Not wanting to go into > bandwidth overtime, I had to put obstacles in the way of viewing the > high-quality photos. So the modal window is all about forcing the user > to work, and therefore reducing the bandwidth.
That may well be the stupidest explanation for a "LightBox" I've ever heard. And that is up against some pretty stiff competition.
> As a user, I completely agree. However as a webmaster I was forced to > make the page harder to use. Each page load was hitting me with 10MB, > and the page was getting tremendously popular. Not wanting to go into > bandwidth overtime, I had to put obstacles in the way of viewing the > high-quality photos. So the modal window is all about forcing the user > to work, and therefore reducing the bandwidth.
Erm... You're joking right? How about providing scaled down images (which would make sense even without bandwith limitations).
