Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Forward/backward overlay arrow
245 views
Skip to first unread message
Alfred Molon
Feb 5, 2012, 4:54:00 PM2/5/12
to
I'd like to add the following feature to my site.
When somebody is on an image page, for instance:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Oracle/img.php?pic=2
and hovers the mouse cursor on the right part of the image a white arrow
(">" shape) appears inside the image, close to the right border.
Moving the mouse cursor out of the right part of the image makes the
white arrow disappear.
Clicking the mouse on the right arrow brings you to the next image of
the gallery (in this case Nr 3).
And the same with the left part of the image (a "<" arrow appears close
to the left border, click on it and you go to the previous image).
I've seen something similar on some sites and I guess this can be done
with Java, but how?
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
When somebody is on an image page, for instance:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Oracle/img.php?pic=2
and hovers the mouse cursor on the right part of the image a white arrow
(">" shape) appears inside the image, close to the right border.
Moving the mouse cursor out of the right part of the image makes the
white arrow disappear.
Clicking the mouse on the right arrow brings you to the next image of
the gallery (in this case Nr 3).
And the same with the left part of the image (a "<" arrow appears close
to the left border, click on it and you go to the previous image).
I've seen something similar on some sites and I guess this can be done
with Java, but how?
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
dorayme
Feb 5, 2012, 6:49:00 PM2/5/12
to
In article <MPG.299918e7d...@news.supernews.com>,
I have had something to do with this for a while at:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/rollover.html>
It might help you, it is all just css, if I remember.
--
dorayme
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd like to add the following feature to my site.
>
> When somebody is on an image page, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Oracle/img.php?pic=2
>
> and hovers the mouse cursor on the right part of the image a white arrow
> (">" shape) appears inside the image, ...
> I'd like to add the following feature to my site.
>
> When somebody is on an image page, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Oracle/img.php?pic=2
>
> and hovers the mouse cursor on the right part of the image a white arrow
I have had something to do with this for a while at:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/rollover.html>
It might help you, it is all just css, if I remember.
--
dorayme
MG
Feb 6, 2012, 1:24:40 AM2/6/12
to
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.299918e7d...@news.supernews.com...
into your page. Perhaps the best known one is Lightbox.
There is a demo of Lightbox here:
http://lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/
Perhaps you want something with row of thumbnails below the image that one
can click on. I'm sure a google search will bring up something that you
like.
--
MG
Hot-Text
Feb 6, 2012, 7:18:44 AM2/6/12
to
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.299918e7d...@news.supernews.com...
<link rel="stylesheet" TYPE="text/css" HREF="name.css">
and it go in the Head.
put this in your name.css File
.top-dog { color: #FFFFFF; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12px; }
.top-dog a:hover { color: #FFF000; text-decoration: underline; }
Put in your File.HTML
<a href="" class="top-dog"><< Prev</A>
<a href="" class="top-dog">Next >></A>
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 6, 2012, 1:08:27 PM2/6/12
to
nothing that you asked for.
Most use JavaScript to overlay clickable links...so I thought I'd
explore a CSS way to provide the overlay interface. Now the backend to
swap the image could be done with server-side with optional JavaScript.
I made no attempt to support <IE8 or ancient browsers but some basic
support could be added with a little effort:
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Slideshow</title>
<style type="text/css">
div.slideshow {
background: #eee; padding: 20px; width: 650px;
text-align: center; position: relative;
}
div.slideshow a {
display: block; border: 2px solid #f00;
color: #f00;
background-color: #fff;
font: 50px bold, sans-serif;
text-decoration: none;
width: 50px; height: 50px;
border-radius: 5px;
opacity:0.5;
position: absolute;
visibility: hidden;
}
div.slideshow a.previous { top: 50%; left: 20px; }
div.slideshow a.next { top: 50%; right: 20px; }
div.slideshow:hover a { visibility: visible; }
</style>
<script type="text/javascript">
function demo(){
var vwr=document.getElementById('viewer');
var links=vwr.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (link in links)
{
links[link].onclick=function(){var
cn=this.className;alert('Clicking this link will either use JavaScript
to load the ' + cn + ' image or with the link use server-side...')};
}
}
window.onload=demo;
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Test Slideshow</h1>
<div class="slideshow" id="viewer">
<img src="specslarge.jpg" alt="sample image">
<a href="#" class="previous" title="View previous image"><</a>
<a href="#" class="next" title="View next image">></a>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
dorayme
Feb 6, 2012, 3:23:49 PM2/6/12
to
In article <jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
Nice picture! <g>
Boy, was I not paying attention when I read original post!
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
Nice picture! <g>
Boy, was I not paying attention when I read original post!
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 6, 2012, 3:45:08 PM2/6/12
to
dorayme wrote:
> In article<jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
>
> Nice picture!<g>
Yes, since I never delete anything it was still laying around since that
> In article<jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
>
> Nice picture!<g>
long ago post...I think it was about browser vs image software rescaling...
>
> Boy, was I not paying attention when I read original post!
>
Alfred Molon
Feb 6, 2012, 5:16:09 PM2/6/12
to
Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
gallery. What do you think?
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
gallery. What do you think?
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 6, 2012, 6:14:38 PM2/6/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>
> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
> gallery. What do you think?
Looks good! Now a couple of things. You do realize that it will not work
> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>
> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
> gallery. What do you think?
at all with IE6 because IE6 does not recognize the hover pseudo-element
"hover" on anything other than an A element with an HREF attribute. You
will need some JavaScript or the htc hack:
<public:component>
// For MSIE use JScript to attach JS functions to compensate
// for missing pseudo-class support
// from Vladdy http://www.vladdy.net/Demos/IEPseudoClassesFix.html
// updated for html4.01 jnl 3/06
// added focus|blur jnl 5/07
<public:component>
// For MSIE use JScript to attach JS functions to compensate
// for missing pseudo-class support
// from Vladdy http://www.vladdy.net/Demos/IEPseudoClassesFix.html
// updated for html4.01 jnl 3/06
// added focus|blur jnl 5/07
<public:attach event="onmouseover" onevent="DoHover()">
<public:attach event="onmouseout" onevent="RestoreHover()">
<public:attach event="onmousedown" onevent="DoActive()">
<public:attach event="onmouseup" onevent="RestoreActive()">
<public:attach event="onfocus" onevent="DoFocus()">
<public:attach event="onblur" onevent="RestoreFocus()">
<script type="text/jscript">
function DoHover(){
element.className += ' hover';
}
function DoActive(){
element.className += ' active';
}
function DoFocus(){
element.className += ' focus';
}
function RestoreHover(){
element.className = element.className.replace(/\shover\b/,'');
}
function RestoreActive(){
element.className = element.className.replace(/\sactive\b/,'');
}
function RestoreFocus(){
element.className = element.className.replace(/\sfocus\b/,'');
}
</script>
</public:component>
And the second thing is you don't need the demo() JavaScript function.
That was just to give you the alert box in the demonstration page to
show you what the clinks did.
I may use the concept for my site where I if the user has JavaScript
enabled I will stack several images of a piece and then use the links
just to rotate among them and not traverse to another page. Of course if
they don't have JavaScript enabled the images would just be laid out in
a column...
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 6, 2012, 8:49:30 PM2/6/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>
> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
> gallery. What do you think?
Did a little more tweaking that enhances it a bit, for the browsers that
> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>
> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
> gallery. What do you think?
support CSS3
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
Alfred Molon
Feb 7, 2012, 1:49:41 PM2/7/12
to
Thanks but I won't bother about IE6, because almost nobody is using it
anymore (< 1% in the USA for instance). And you can navigate the site
also without Java.
I took out the demo function and the new script is
<script type="text/javascript">
window.onload;
</script>
Is this correct?
If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
(transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
anymore (< 1% in the USA for instance). And you can navigate the site
also without Java.
I took out the demo function and the new script is
<script type="text/javascript">
window.onload;
</script>
Is this correct?
If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
(transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 7, 2012, 2:40:18 PM2/7/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> Thanks but I won't bother about IE6, because almost nobody is using it
> anymore (< 1% in the USA for instance). And you can navigate the site
> also without Java.
Just a nitpick here the technology is *JavaScript* not Java. Java is a
> Thanks but I won't bother about IE6, because almost nobody is using it
> anymore (< 1% in the USA for instance). And you can navigate the site
> also without Java.
different beast all together.
>
> I took out the demo function and the new script is
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> window.onload;
> </script>
>
> Is this correct?
is all CSS.
>
> If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
> (transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
I use it here if you want to peek.
<http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/ak2007.php>
Alfred Molon
Feb 7, 2012, 4:45:38 PM2/7/12
to
In article <jgrun5$oko$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
> No, you don't need any of it. No JavaScript was need to do the effect it
> is all CSS.
Oh... I'm impressed. CSS is so mighty?
> > If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
> > (transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ui.html#propdef-cursor>
>
> I use it here if you want to peek.
>
> <http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/ak2007.php>
The link doesn't work. But I made the changes already, see for instance:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Spain/Barcelona/Montjuic/img.php?pic=8
> No, you don't need any of it. No JavaScript was need to do the effect it
> is all CSS.
> > If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
> > (transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ui.html#propdef-cursor>
>
> I use it here if you want to peek.
>
> <http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/ak2007.php>
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Spain/Barcelona/Montjuic/img.php?pic=8
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 7, 2012, 5:49:16 PM2/7/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jgrun5$oko$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>
>> No, you don't need any of it. No JavaScript was need to do the effect it
>> is all CSS.
>
> Oh... I'm impressed. CSS is so mighty?
>
>>> If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
>>> (transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ui.html#propdef-cursor>
>>
>> I use it here if you want to peek.
>>
>> <http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/ak2007.php>
>
> The link doesn't work. But I made the changes already, see for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Spain/Barcelona/Montjuic/img.php?pic=8
Doh! As it shouldn't that is the development mirror on the wrong site of
> In article<jgrun5$oko$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>
>> No, you don't need any of it. No JavaScript was need to do the effect it
>> is all CSS.
>
> Oh... I'm impressed. CSS is so mighty?
>
>>> If I want to replace the cursors and the white boxes with images
>>> (transparent gif or png) how do I do that?
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ui.html#propdef-cursor>
>>
>> I use it here if you want to peek.
>>
>> <http://littleworksstudio.lws.lan/ak2007.php>
>
> The link doesn't work. But I made the changes already, see for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Spain/Barcelona/Montjuic/img.php?pic=8
the firewall! Try the public server!
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/ak2007.php
123Jim
Feb 8, 2012, 8:48:15 AM2/8/12
to
On 06/02/2012 23:14, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
>> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>>
>> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
>> gallery. What do you think?
>
> Looks good! Now a couple of things. You do realize that it will not work
> at all with IE6 because IE6 does not recognize the hover pseudo-element
> "hover" on anything other than an A element with an HREF attribute. You
> will need some JavaScript or the htc hack:
>
We can forget about IE6
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Ok, many thanks for the script. I did it, here is an example:
>> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Germany/Munich/Skyline/img.php?pic=5
>>
>> Left/right arrows to go back and forth, up arrow to return to the photo
>> gallery. What do you think?
>
> Looks good! Now a couple of things. You do realize that it will not work
> at all with IE6 because IE6 does not recognize the hover pseudo-element
> "hover" on anything other than an A element with an HREF attribute. You
> will need some JavaScript or the htc hack:
>
http://windowsteamblog.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2012/01/03/the-us-says-goodbye-to-ie6.aspx
surely
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 8, 2012, 9:39:04 AM2/8/12
to
well, but in reality some large businesses drank the MS Kool-aid and
locked their infrastructure on the IE-only crap for their intranets.
dorayme
Feb 8, 2012, 3:59:39 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgtuf6$g85$1...@dont-email.me>,
those developers who earn significant percentages of their incomes
charging for making their sites look good in it would not suffer so
abruptly and brutally. Now where will they get their petrol money
from? Where the root canal treatment fee? Where the bucks to pay the
office cleaner or the classy secretary or the long business lunches?
Children may have to be moved to public schools.
--
dorayme
123Jim <jnkjn...@uhnuhnunuhnuy.invalid> wrote:
> We can forget about IE6
> http://windowsteamblog.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2012/01/03/the-us-says-goodbye-to-i
> e6.aspx
If folk would just let IE6 lead a quiet death instead of fanfaring it,
> We can forget about IE6
> http://windowsteamblog.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2012/01/03/the-us-says-goodbye-to-i
> e6.aspx
those developers who earn significant percentages of their incomes
charging for making their sites look good in it would not suffer so
abruptly and brutally. Now where will they get their petrol money
from? Where the root canal treatment fee? Where the bucks to pay the
office cleaner or the classy secretary or the long business lunches?
Children may have to be moved to public schools.
--
dorayme
Hot-Text
Feb 7, 2012, 6:23:05 AM2/7/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me...
It works all you need was a background-color
and the code came from the link the OP gave..
but for you Mr. Little I clean it up....
Try it you may buy it....... not as big
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>top-dog is name.css</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" TYPE="text/css" HREF="http://mynews.ath.cx:81/name.css">
</head>
<body>
<!-- 3 TD -->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<td><a href="" class="top-dog" style=" background-color: #0000ff;"> < < Prev </A></td>
<td style="color: #ffffff;">My Dog home</td>
<td><a href="" class="top-dog" style="background-color: #0000ff;"> Next > > </A></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<!-- 2 TD -->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<td><div align='center'>
<a href="" class="top-dog" style=" background-color: #0000ff;"> < < Prev </A><a href="" class="top-dog"
style="background-color: #0000ff;"> Next > > </A>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<!-- One TD and Two onClick buttons-->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<form class='top-dog'>
<td><input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color: #0000ff;' value='< < Prev'
onClick='history.go(-1)'></td>
<td><input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color: #0000ff;' value='Next > >'
onClick='history.go(1)'></td>
</form>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
and the code came from the link the OP gave..
but for you Mr. Little I clean it up....
Try it you may buy it....... not as big
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>top-dog is name.css</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" TYPE="text/css" HREF="http://mynews.ath.cx:81/name.css">
</head>
<body>
<!-- 3 TD -->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<td><a href="" class="top-dog" style=" background-color: #0000ff;"> < < Prev </A></td>
<td style="color: #ffffff;">My Dog home</td>
<td><a href="" class="top-dog" style="background-color: #0000ff;"> Next > > </A></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<!-- 2 TD -->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<td><div align='center'>
<a href="" class="top-dog" style=" background-color: #0000ff;"> < < Prev </A><a href="" class="top-dog"
style="background-color: #0000ff;"> Next > > </A>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<!-- One TD and Two onClick buttons-->
<table summary="" border="1" bgcolor="#0000ff">
<tr>
<form class='top-dog'>
<td><input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color: #0000ff;' value='< < Prev'
onClick='history.go(-1)'></td>
<td><input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color: #0000ff;' value='Next > >'
onClick='history.go(1)'></td>
</form>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 8, 2012, 7:35:57 PM2/8/12
to
2) It may be simple, but for a small snippet of code it it riddled with
errors.
3) "onClick='history.go(1)'" does not do what you think it does. It
will *not* get you to the next page unless you already visited it.
Hot-Text
Feb 9, 2012, 1:48:36 AM2/9/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgv4df$s5o$1...@dont-email.me...
Jonathan are you here to gave free help,
your to get Client for LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
1)To say that is not do what the OP requested,
we I getting the code from the link he give..
2)works with not Errors if it had, there would be
two or more Groupie who would say so and who us the Errors of your ways
3)
you have to Start same where to go back too,
and I all hope it back to my page
http://mynews.ath.cx:81/776/index.html
Show that 776 is no 777
> Hot-Text wrote:
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Hot-Text wrote:
>>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
your to get Client for LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
1)To say that is not do what the OP requested,
we I getting the code from the link he give..
2)works with not Errors if it had, there would be
two or more Groupie who would say so and who us the Errors of your ways
3)
you have to Start same where to go back too,
and I all hope it back to my page
http://mynews.ath.cx:81/776/index.html
Show that 776 is no 777
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 9, 2012, 8:55:37 AM2/9/12
to
addressed the OP's request.
>
> 1)To say that is not do what the OP requested,
> we I getting the code from the link he give..
example of that he was already doing, (i.e., static navigation link
below his images), but for the overlayed one seen on sites like Facebook.
> 2)works with not Errors if it had, there would be
> two or more Groupie who would say so and who us the Errors of your ways
<http://validator.w3.org/>
You markup is a hodge-podge HTML 3.2, 4.01 and XHTML and some just plain
invalid.
> 3)
> you have to Start same where to go back too,
> and I all hope it back to my page
> http://mynews.ath.cx:81/776/index.html
> Show that 776 is no 777
>
the current topic. I am confident that I am not alone either.
dorayme
Feb 9, 2012, 3:55:04 PM2/9/12
to
In article <jh0j8q$5s2$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hot-Text wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan are you here to gave free help,
> >
> > your to get Client for LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
>
> Not sure I grok. I offered a *working* and *valid* example that
> addressed the OP's request.
This hot bit of text is insulting you! It is insinuating that you are
posting to tout for business.
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hot-Text wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan are you here to gave free help,
> >
> > your to get Client for LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
>
> Not sure I grok. I offered a *working* and *valid* example that
> addressed the OP's request.
posting to tout for business.
--
dorayme
Hot-Text
Feb 10, 2012, 3:26:01 AM2/10/12
to
"dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:dorayme-E3A80A...@news.albasani.net...
Look I like Jonathan he give good info,
and a 99.99% right at times,
for we all are out to get some business,
Free good info, show that Jonathan can do the work for the right Clients....
But you dorayme, is the insulting one..
you know they have a name for guys like you,
and I have no more to say on that subject..
and a 99.99% right at times,
for we all are out to get some business,
Free good info, show that Jonathan can do the work for the right Clients....
But you dorayme, is the insulting one..
you know they have a name for guys like you,
and I have no more to say on that subject..
Hot-Text
Feb 10, 2012, 3:34:53 AM2/10/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jh0j8q$5s2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> 1)To say that is not do what the OP requested,
>> we I getting the code from the link he give..
>
> But if you reread the OP you will discover he was not asking for an
> example of that he was already doing, (i.e., static navigation link
> below his images), but for the overlayed one seen on sites like Facebook.
>
>
>> 2)works with not Errors if it had, there would be
>> two or more Groupie who would say so and who us the Errors of your ways
>
> Obviously you never used a validator.
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/>
>
> You markup is a hodge-podge HTML 3.2, 4.01 and XHTML and some just plain
> invalid.
>
more like a HTML 2.0
>
>> 3)
>> you have to Start same where to go back too,
>> and I all hope it back to my page
>> http://mynews.ath.cx:81/776/index.html
>> Show that 776 is no 777
>>
>
> I have no ides what you are saying here, nor what that has to do with
> the current topic. I am confident that I am not alone either.
>
to his you'll history.go(-1), back to my webpage true...
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 10, 2012, 8:09:09 AM2/10/12
to
Hot-Text wrote:
>
> I was just say if you came from my webpage by a link,
> to his you'll history.go(-1), back to my webpage true...
But your markup:
>
> I was just say if you came from my webpage by a link,
> to his you'll history.go(-1), back to my webpage true...
<input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color:
#0000ff;' value='Next > >' onClick='history.go(1)'>
*history* to go to the "future": a page that the user has not visited yet.
dorayme
Feb 10, 2012, 3:16:06 PM2/10/12
to
In article <jh34to$fkt$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You cannot use
> *history* to go to the "future": a page that the user has not visited yet.
O yeah? No wonder the world is doomed, you earthlings never learn.
> You cannot use
> *history* to go to the "future": a page that the user has not visited yet.
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 10, 2012, 4:36:35 PM2/10/12
to
Alfred Molon
Feb 10, 2012, 6:01:36 PM2/10/12
to
In article <jgu1e8$1gv$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
> If only it were true...I'd like to throw IE7 & 8 on the funeral pyre as
> well, but in reality some large businesses drank the MS Kool-aid and
> locked their infrastructure on the IE-only crap for their intranets.
Just ran into some issues with IE :-(
I tried to do something new and it works in Firefox (latest version),
Opera (latest version) but not in IE (I have version 9).
I put a transparent png on the image, so that if you click anywhere on
the image except on the left/right buttons you go one level higher:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/img.php?pic=2
The idea was to get rid of the top button and make the entire image
surface clickable.
Does not work in IE... why?
The plan is also to get rid of the "Select" and "Lightbox" links on the
gallery page:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
by making these links appear on the thumbnail when hovering on it. It is
doable with the code you suggested, but I want to have the thumbnails
clickable, so that clicking on the thumbnails everywhere except on the
"Select" and "Lightbox" links leads you to the image page.
Something like this:
<div class="image" >
<img src="thumb.jpg" alt="">
<a href="page with large image> class="impage" title="pic name">
<img src="1.png" alt=""></a>
<a href="select link" class="sel" title="Select image">Select</a>
<a href="lightbox link" class="light" title="Lightbox">Lightbox</a>
</div>
BTW, I assume that the search engines wouldn't have any problem
following the three links above, would they?
> If only it were true...I'd like to throw IE7 & 8 on the funeral pyre as
> well, but in reality some large businesses drank the MS Kool-aid and
> locked their infrastructure on the IE-only crap for their intranets.
I tried to do something new and it works in Firefox (latest version),
Opera (latest version) but not in IE (I have version 9).
I put a transparent png on the image, so that if you click anywhere on
the image except on the left/right buttons you go one level higher:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/img.php?pic=2
The idea was to get rid of the top button and make the entire image
surface clickable.
Does not work in IE... why?
The plan is also to get rid of the "Select" and "Lightbox" links on the
gallery page:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
by making these links appear on the thumbnail when hovering on it. It is
doable with the code you suggested, but I want to have the thumbnails
clickable, so that clicking on the thumbnails everywhere except on the
"Select" and "Lightbox" links leads you to the image page.
Something like this:
<div class="image" >
<img src="thumb.jpg" alt="">
<a href="page with large image> class="impage" title="pic name">
<img src="1.png" alt=""></a>
<a href="select link" class="sel" title="Select image">Select</a>
<a href="lightbox link" class="light" title="Lightbox">Lightbox</a>
</div>
BTW, I assume that the search engines wouldn't have any problem
following the three links above, would they?
Hot-Text
Feb 10, 2012, 7:59:27 PM2/10/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jh34to$fkt$1...@dont-email.me...
Look like I bit my foot,
LOOL ;)
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
> Hot-Text wrote:
>>
>> I was just say if you came from my webpage by a link,
>> to his you'll history.go(-1), back to my webpage true...
>
>
>
> But your markup:
>
> <input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color:
> #0000ff;' value='Next > >' onClick='history.go(1)'>
>
> Does *not* go to the next page as you have labeled. You cannot use
> *history* to go to the "future": a page that the user has not visited yet.
>
True, You 100% right!
>>
>> I was just say if you came from my webpage by a link,
>> to his you'll history.go(-1), back to my webpage true...
>
>
>
> But your markup:
>
> <input class='top-dog' type='button' style='background-color:
> #0000ff;' value='Next > >' onClick='history.go(1)'>
>
> Does *not* go to the next page as you have labeled. You cannot use
> *history* to go to the "future": a page that the user has not visited yet.
>
Look like I bit my foot,
LOOL ;)
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 10, 2012, 8:34:19 PM2/10/12
to
>> If only it were true...I'd like to throw IE7& 8 on the funeral pyre as
positioned and OVERLAPPING. Maybe since IE only supports event bubbling
and Firefox supports and fires both capture AND bubble unless otherwise
specified may explain the difference. But I would say if you have the
top button why make the whole image to the same? It is not intuive. I
would expect the arrow icons to the the "controls". Click the image I
would expect would "open the image to say a larger version..."
>
>
> The plan is also to get rid of the "Select" and "Lightbox" links on the
> gallery page:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
>
> by making these links appear on the thumbnail when hovering on it. It is
> doable with the code you suggested, but I want to have the thumbnails
> clickable, so that clicking on the thumbnails everywhere except on the
> "Select" and "Lightbox" links leads you to the image page.
>
> Something like this:
>
> <div class="image">
> <img src="thumb.jpg" alt="">
> <a href="page with large image> class="impage" title="pic name">
> <img src="1.png" alt=""></a>
> <a href="select link" class="sel" title="Select image">Select</a>
> <a href="lightbox link" class="light" title="Lightbox">Lightbox</a>
> </div>
>
> BTW, I assume that the search engines wouldn't have any problem
> following the three links above, would they?
A link is a link. The only trouble would be how it was created. If you
use JavaScript then yes it would have an impact on search engines.
>> well, but in reality some large businesses drank the MS Kool-aid and
>> locked their infrastructure on the IE-only crap for their intranets.
>
> Just ran into some issues with IE :-(
>
> I tried to do something new and it works in Firefox (latest version),
> Opera (latest version) but not in IE (I have version 9).
>
> I put a transparent png on the image, so that if you click anywhere on
> the image except on the left/right buttons you go one level higher:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/img.php?pic=2
>
> The idea was to get rid of the top button and make the entire image
> surface clickable.
>
> Does not work in IE... why?
Not sure, but you do have the situation where links are absolutely
>> locked their infrastructure on the IE-only crap for their intranets.
>
> Just ran into some issues with IE :-(
>
> I tried to do something new and it works in Firefox (latest version),
> Opera (latest version) but not in IE (I have version 9).
>
> I put a transparent png on the image, so that if you click anywhere on
> the image except on the left/right buttons you go one level higher:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/img.php?pic=2
>
> The idea was to get rid of the top button and make the entire image
> surface clickable.
>
> Does not work in IE... why?
positioned and OVERLAPPING. Maybe since IE only supports event bubbling
and Firefox supports and fires both capture AND bubble unless otherwise
specified may explain the difference. But I would say if you have the
top button why make the whole image to the same? It is not intuive. I
would expect the arrow icons to the the "controls". Click the image I
would expect would "open the image to say a larger version..."
>
>
> The plan is also to get rid of the "Select" and "Lightbox" links on the
> gallery page:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
>
> by making these links appear on the thumbnail when hovering on it. It is
> doable with the code you suggested, but I want to have the thumbnails
> clickable, so that clicking on the thumbnails everywhere except on the
> "Select" and "Lightbox" links leads you to the image page.
>
> Something like this:
>
> <div class="image">
> <img src="thumb.jpg" alt="">
> <a href="page with large image> class="impage" title="pic name">
> <img src="1.png" alt=""></a>
> <a href="select link" class="sel" title="Select image">Select</a>
> <a href="lightbox link" class="light" title="Lightbox">Lightbox</a>
> </div>
>
> BTW, I assume that the search engines wouldn't have any problem
> following the three links above, would they?
use JavaScript then yes it would have an impact on search engines.
BootNic
Feb 10, 2012, 8:54:49 PM2/10/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:49:30 -0500
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Did a little more tweaking that enhances it a bit, for the browsers that
> support CSS3
>
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
CSS3 manual slide show:
[url]
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxHTOGjZD9sZYjY3NzI2Y2UtY2RjOS00MzkxLWJkNWEtMzM4OGFlMWM3NzU0
[/url]
Not intended for old tired browsers. HTML content generated with the aid of PHP
from a directory of images.
--
BootNic Fri Feb 10, 2012 08:54 pm
Genius is eternal patience.
*Michelangelo*
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Did a little more tweaking that enhances it a bit, for the browsers that
> support CSS3
>
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
[url]
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxHTOGjZD9sZYjY3NzI2Y2UtY2RjOS00MzkxLWJkNWEtMzM4OGFlMWM3NzU0
[/url]
Not intended for old tired browsers. HTML content generated with the aid of PHP
from a directory of images.
--
BootNic Fri Feb 10, 2012 08:54 pm
Genius is eternal patience.
*Michelangelo*
Alfred Molon
Feb 11, 2012, 4:54:39 AM2/11/12
to
In article <jh4giv$hb0$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
In the case of the thumbnail table
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
clicking on the thumbnail should bring you to the page with the large
image.
Here the whole thumbnail area should be clickable, except on the lower
part with the Select and Lightbox links where clicking leads you to
somewhere else. How do I implement this?
The idea is to eliminate the page area dedicated to the Select and
Lightbox links, thereby having more page area showing relevant content.
I would like to do this without Java, if possible.
> Not sure, but you do have the situation where links are absolutely
> positioned and OVERLAPPING. Maybe since IE only supports event bubbling
> and Firefox supports and fires both capture AND bubble unless otherwise
> specified may explain the difference. But I would say if you have the
> top button why make the whole image to the same? It is not intuive. I
> would expect the arrow icons to the the "controls". Click the image I
> would expect would "open the image to say a larger version..."
Ok, you are probably right.
> positioned and OVERLAPPING. Maybe since IE only supports event bubbling
> and Firefox supports and fires both capture AND bubble unless otherwise
> specified may explain the difference. But I would say if you have the
> top button why make the whole image to the same? It is not intuive. I
> would expect the arrow icons to the the "controls". Click the image I
> would expect would "open the image to say a larger version..."
In the case of the thumbnail table
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
clicking on the thumbnail should bring you to the page with the large
image.
Here the whole thumbnail area should be clickable, except on the lower
part with the Select and Lightbox links where clicking leads you to
somewhere else. How do I implement this?
The idea is to eliminate the page area dedicated to the Select and
Lightbox links, thereby having more page area showing relevant content.
I would like to do this without Java, if possible.
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 11, 2012, 2:19:15 PM2/11/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> Ok, you are probably right.
>
> In the case of the thumbnail table
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
>
> clicking on the thumbnail should bring you to the page with the large
> image.
> Here the whole thumbnail area should be clickable, except on the lower
> part with the Select and Lightbox links where clicking leads you to
> somewhere else. How do I implement this?
>
> The idea is to eliminate the page area dedicated to the Select and
> Lightbox links, thereby having more page area showing relevant content.
> I would like to do this without Java, if possible.
First of all a nitpick here, Java != JavaScript/
> Ok, you are probably right.
>
> In the case of the thumbnail table
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Amun/
>
> clicking on the thumbnail should bring you to the page with the large
> image.
> Here the whole thumbnail area should be clickable, except on the lower
> part with the Select and Lightbox links where clicking leads you to
> somewhere else. How do I implement this?
>
> The idea is to eliminate the page area dedicated to the Select and
> Lightbox links, thereby having more page area showing relevant content.
> I would like to do this without Java, if possible.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript>
It is JavaScript that you mean to say.
Basically I would do it just like the page you did before, but repeat
for each thumbnail:
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo>
Alfred Molon
Feb 11, 2012, 7:13:48 PM2/11/12
to
In article <jh6evp$pb0$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
> It is JavaScript that you mean to say.
Yes, apologies for using the wrong name ;-)
> Basically I would do it just like the page you did before, but repeat
> for each thumbnail:
>
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo>
Thanks for your effort, but what I'm trying to do is to optimise the
screen space, by squeezing as many thumbnails as possible into one page.
The idea is to eliminate the "Lightbox Select" rows, e.g.
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Village/
by making these links appear/disappear automatically when you hover on
the thumbnails.
In the test page you created there is a lot of space between the
thumbnails, while I'd like to optimise the usage of the screen area.
In trying to transfer the code of the image pages to the thumbnail pages
I'm running into the problem that the div.image css has a fixed size:
div.image {
width: <image width> px;
text-align: center;
position: relative;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
while my thumbnails have variable sizes.
One option would be to create such a div.image css one for each
thumbnail ( div.image01 ... div.image02... etc), or is there a way to
take the width parameter out of div.image and put it into the style css
of each thumbnail?
This is how far I got this evening (1am here right now):
http://www.molon.de/test2/gal.html
The left thumbnail does what I want, but the formatting and positioning
of the Lightbox Select links is still a mess.
> It is JavaScript that you mean to say.
> Basically I would do it just like the page you did before, but repeat
> for each thumbnail:
>
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo>
screen space, by squeezing as many thumbnails as possible into one page.
The idea is to eliminate the "Lightbox Select" rows, e.g.
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Village/
by making these links appear/disappear automatically when you hover on
the thumbnails.
In the test page you created there is a lot of space between the
thumbnails, while I'd like to optimise the usage of the screen area.
In trying to transfer the code of the image pages to the thumbnail pages
I'm running into the problem that the div.image css has a fixed size:
div.image {
width: <image width> px;
text-align: center;
position: relative;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
while my thumbnails have variable sizes.
One option would be to create such a div.image css one for each
thumbnail ( div.image01 ... div.image02... etc), or is there a way to
take the width parameter out of div.image and put it into the style css
of each thumbnail?
This is how far I got this evening (1am here right now):
http://www.molon.de/test2/gal.html
The left thumbnail does what I want, but the formatting and positioning
of the Lightbox Select links is still a mess.
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 11, 2012, 8:51:45 PM2/11/12
to
dims with your PHP getimagesize() and then generate the CSS on the fly.
Not only is that a bit fussy, having DIV of differing sizes stack oddly
when floated...Better to set a minimum size and stick with it.
> This is how far I got this evening (1am here right now):
> http://www.molon.de/test2/gal.html
>
> The left thumbnail does what I want, but the formatting and positioning
> of the Lightbox Select links is still a mess.
Alfred Molon
Feb 12, 2012, 12:33:39 PM2/12/12
to
In article <jh75vp$no1$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Oman/Wahiba/Pattern/
The Select and Lightbox links now appear on hover, the thumbnails are
still clickable and lead to the image pages, and the whole thumbnail
table and overall image presentation is now more neat.
I'm now starting to wonder if it would be possible to have more things
happening when hovering on the thumbnails:
- enlarged thumbnails appears
- infobox with details about the image appears
By the way, IE8 does not support the opacity parameter, only IE9 does.
> No with CSS. You could have the thumb dims in the database, or get the
> dims with your PHP getimagesize() and then generate the CSS on the fly.
> Not only is that a bit fussy, having DIV of differing sizes stack oddly
> when floated...Better to set a minimum size and stick with it.
Ok, I managed to do it - with CSS. Here is an example:
> dims with your PHP getimagesize() and then generate the CSS on the fly.
> Not only is that a bit fussy, having DIV of differing sizes stack oddly
> when floated...Better to set a minimum size and stick with it.
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Oman/Wahiba/Pattern/
The Select and Lightbox links now appear on hover, the thumbnails are
still clickable and lead to the image pages, and the whole thumbnail
table and overall image presentation is now more neat.
I'm now starting to wonder if it would be possible to have more things
happening when hovering on the thumbnails:
- enlarged thumbnails appears
- infobox with details about the image appears
By the way, IE8 does not support the opacity parameter, only IE9 does.
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 12, 2012, 12:57:28 PM2/12/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jh75vp$no1$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> No with CSS. You could have the thumb dims in the database, or get the
>> dims with your PHP getimagesize() and then generate the CSS on the fly.
>> Not only is that a bit fussy, having DIV of differing sizes stack oddly
>> when floated...Better to set a minimum size and stick with it.
>
> Ok, I managed to do it - with CSS. Here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Oman/Wahiba/Pattern/
>
> The Select and Lightbox links now appear on hover, the thumbnails are
> still clickable and lead to the image pages, and the whole thumbnail
> table and overall image presentation is now more neat.
Sure does. The only criticism I would say is by using a table with a
> In article<jh75vp$no1$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> No with CSS. You could have the thumb dims in the database, or get the
>> dims with your PHP getimagesize() and then generate the CSS on the fly.
>> Not only is that a bit fussy, having DIV of differing sizes stack oddly
>> when floated...Better to set a minimum size and stick with it.
>
> Ok, I managed to do it - with CSS. Here is an example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Oman/Wahiba/Pattern/
>
> The Select and Lightbox links now appear on hover, the thumbnails are
> still clickable and lead to the image pages, and the whole thumbnail
> table and overall image presentation is now more neat.
fixed width that 1) you have to pre-layout each grouping to fit, And 2)
if a visitor has a wide screen monitor where that could easily stretch
to window to see ALL the thumbs at once they cannot with your fixed
layout. I prefer a more flexible approach.
>
> I'm now starting to wonder if it would be possible to have more things
> happening when hovering on the thumbnails:
> - enlarged thumbnails appears
> - infobox with details about the image appears
>
> By the way, IE8 does not support the opacity parameter, only IE9 does.
vertical-align: bottom;" But hey, it degrades okay and that is what they
deserve for using MSIE! ;-)
Alfred Molon
Feb 12, 2012, 2:37:13 PM2/12/12
to
In article <jh8ui5$6b5$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
differences in thumbnail width, see for example:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/
With this combination floating thumbnails are a bit messy. Either you
have to take out the text below the thumbnail, or you do it the with
your implementation, but then end up with lots of unused screen space.
With the current state of the technology, HTML+CSS can't solve the
problem.
Perhaps it would be possible to do an optimal float with Javascript: by
writing a Java application which executes on the client and builds up a
thumbnails table matching the window width. This would not work however
with disabled Javascript.
Another option would be to offer the thumbnail table width as a
parameter, allowing people for instance to enter a pixel width (600,
800, 1000, 2000 etc.).
On the other hand, is there a PHP function with which to read the window
width in the browser of the client?
> Sure does. The only criticism I would say is by using a table with a
> fixed width that 1) you have to pre-layout each grouping to fit, And 2)
> if a visitor has a wide screen monitor where that could easily stretch
> to window to see ALL the thumbs at once they cannot with your fixed
> layout. I prefer a more flexible approach.
The problem is that each thumbnail has some text and there are big
> fixed width that 1) you have to pre-layout each grouping to fit, And 2)
> if a visitor has a wide screen monitor where that could easily stretch
> to window to see ALL the thumbs at once they cannot with your fixed
> layout. I prefer a more flexible approach.
differences in thumbnail width, see for example:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/
With this combination floating thumbnails are a bit messy. Either you
have to take out the text below the thumbnail, or you do it the with
your implementation, but then end up with lots of unused screen space.
With the current state of the technology, HTML+CSS can't solve the
problem.
Perhaps it would be possible to do an optimal float with Javascript: by
writing a Java application which executes on the client and builds up a
thumbnails table matching the window width. This would not work however
with disabled Javascript.
Another option would be to offer the thumbnail table width as a
parameter, allowing people for instance to enter a pixel width (600,
800, 1000, 2000 etc.).
On the other hand, is there a PHP function with which to read the window
width in the browser of the client?
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 12, 2012, 3:11:53 PM2/12/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jh8ui5$6b5$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> Sure does. The only criticism I would say is by using a table with a
>> fixed width that 1) you have to pre-layout each grouping to fit, And 2)
>> if a visitor has a wide screen monitor where that could easily stretch
>> to window to see ALL the thumbs at once they cannot with your fixed
>> layout. I prefer a more flexible approach.
>
> The problem is that each thumbnail has some text and there are big
> differences in thumbnail width, see for example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/
Since they are thumbnails where you are only giving a hint of "what is
> In article<jh8ui5$6b5$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> Sure does. The only criticism I would say is by using a table with a
>> fixed width that 1) you have to pre-layout each grouping to fit, And 2)
>> if a visitor has a wide screen monitor where that could easily stretch
>> to window to see ALL the thumbs at once they cannot with your fixed
>> layout. I prefer a more flexible approach.
>
> The problem is that each thumbnail has some text and there are big
> differences in thumbnail width, see for example:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/
to come" if you click the enlarge button you could either pick a max
width and max height and scale thumb not to exceed the constraints or
chop to just show a portion. I have seem both methods employed.
>
> With this combination floating thumbnails are a bit messy. Either you
> have to take out the text below the thumbnail, or you do it the with
> your implementation, but then end up with lots of unused screen space.
>
+----------------------+
| +-------+ |
| |#######| |
| |#######| |
| |#######| |
+----------------------+
> With the current state of the technology, HTML+CSS can't solve the
> problem.
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to do an optimal float with Javascript: by
> writing a Java application which executes on the client and builds up a
> thumbnails table matching the window width. This would not work however
> with disabled Javascript.
then the stacking would not be so bad. You can use PHP's getimagesize()
to get each thumbnails width and add the width style adjustment on each
DIV as to build the page. Yes it would take some effort if you feel each
row MUST be centered, but hey you're photographer I gather, you don't
always have to put your subject center-frame right? ;-)
>
> Another option would be to offer the thumbnail table width as a
> parameter, allowing people for instance to enter a pixel width (600,
> 800, 1000, 2000 etc.).
>
> On the other hand, is there a PHP function with which to read the window
> width in the browser of the client?
Alfred Molon
Feb 12, 2012, 3:45:57 PM2/12/12
to
In article <jh96e6$n9h$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
test server):
if (!(isset($_GET['brwi']))) {
echo "<script language='javascript'>\n";
echo " location.href=\"${_SERVER['SCRIPT_NAME']}?${_SERVER
['QUERY_STRING']}"
. "&brwi=\" + window.innerWidth\n";
echo "</script>\n";
exit();
}
and then with the following PHP code:
$maxwidth = $_GET['brwi'] - 100;
I read the browser width and set the table size.
Then with
$thumbtable = make_thumbtable ($pics, $maxwidth);
I generate the thumbnail table.
Works like a *MIRACLE*: when I resize the browser window and call the
page it automatically generates a table in the right size.
BUT: fails miserably if Javascript is disabled - you get a white screen.
That's because with disabled Javascript the browser does not call again
the server and everything dies there.
What can I do?
> Not client-side. That's JavaScripts domain. PHP only knows the server ;-)
I just tried inserting the following into my PHP script (on my local
test server):
if (!(isset($_GET['brwi']))) {
echo "<script language='javascript'>\n";
echo " location.href=\"${_SERVER['SCRIPT_NAME']}?${_SERVER
['QUERY_STRING']}"
. "&brwi=\" + window.innerWidth\n";
echo "</script>\n";
exit();
}
and then with the following PHP code:
$maxwidth = $_GET['brwi'] - 100;
I read the browser width and set the table size.
Then with
$thumbtable = make_thumbtable ($pics, $maxwidth);
I generate the thumbnail table.
Works like a *MIRACLE*: when I resize the browser window and call the
page it automatically generates a table in the right size.
BUT: fails miserably if Javascript is disabled - you get a white screen.
That's because with disabled Javascript the browser does not call again
the server and everything dies there.
What can I do?
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 12, 2012, 4:53:09 PM2/12/12
to
impossible situation, I decide to rethink my objective and approach.
Here I get the thumb width with PHP getimagesize function
//only need 1st value in returned array which is the width
list($thumb_width) = getimagesize($thumb);
Then I set the width style property of the in the lightbox DIV when
generating the output:
<div class="lightbox" style="width: <?=$thumb_width?>px;">
In action:
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo2>
Alfred Molon
Feb 13, 2012, 3:01:22 PM2/13/12
to
In article <jh9cc2$r1r$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo2>
This is the best implementation of the floating thumbnail concept I've
seen so far.
But how about the image pages, for instance:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo2>
This is the best implementation of the floating thumbnail concept I've
seen so far.
But how about the image pages, for instance:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
dorayme
Feb 13, 2012, 3:23:59 PM2/13/12
to
In article <MPG.29a38a7f5...@news.supernews.com>,
scaled to window size where would the rest of the page go? If it
scaled to the rest of the page (top and bottom headings and
navigation), it would be scaling to a certain box that included
everything but not the viewport. Everything to scale to window size is
not a definite concept and can mean different things. To spread
everything out to fit the largest viewport would actually be a
caricature of the idea of fluid design, it would result in ugliness
(tempting some developers to go to the other extreme of elegant fixed
width jobs).
btw, why do you want the big overlaying arrows, they look ugly and
distracting when visible? What is actually wrong with simple normal
nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
so many other things are there permanently on every page without
distracting from the picture. These popup arrows are cooler in some
way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
they having to be fished for with mice.
--
dorayme
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the image pages, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
>
> The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
Wonder what your idea of scaling to window size is exactly? If it
> the image pages, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
>
> The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
scaled to window size where would the rest of the page go? If it
scaled to the rest of the page (top and bottom headings and
navigation), it would be scaling to a certain box that included
everything but not the viewport. Everything to scale to window size is
not a definite concept and can mean different things. To spread
everything out to fit the largest viewport would actually be a
caricature of the idea of fluid design, it would result in ugliness
(tempting some developers to go to the other extreme of elegant fixed
width jobs).
btw, why do you want the big overlaying arrows, they look ugly and
distracting when visible? What is actually wrong with simple normal
nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
so many other things are there permanently on every page without
distracting from the picture. These popup arrows are cooler in some
way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
they having to be fished for with mice.
--
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Feb 13, 2012, 3:43:57 PM2/13/12
to
dorayme wrote:
> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
No, not at all. :-) I find them ugly and distracting. Whoever invented
> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
them should be invited to a hanging ceremony.
> I see them as unnecessary and
> even not particular user friendly, they having to be fished for with
> mice.
fishing with the mice and surmise there's only one image to see.
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 13, 2012, 4:05:41 PM2/13/12
to
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jh9cc2$r1r$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo2>
>
> This is the best implementation of the floating thumbnail concept I've
> seen so far.
>
> But how about the image pages, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
>
> The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
Sure, use the same method as I did for the thumbs. Don't list the width
> In article<jh9cc2$r1r$1...@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little says...
>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/lightboxdemo2>
>
> This is the best implementation of the floating thumbnail concept I've
> seen so far.
>
> But how about the image pages, for instance:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/Siwa/Desert/img.php?pic=2
>
> The image is fixed width. How to make this scale with the window size?
property in the "image" class and insert it inline when you generate the
page:
Here I get the image width with PHP getimagesize function
//only need 1st value in returned array which is the width
<div class="image" style="width: <?=$image_width?>px;">
Alternatively a little cleaner that inline styles is to inject it in the
head
<style type="text/css">
div.image { width: <?=$image_width?>px; }
...
Alfred Molon
Feb 13, 2012, 4:06:29 PM2/13/12
to
In article <dorayme-8D94FE...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
says...
> What is actually wrong with simple normal
> nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
> so many other things are there permanently on every page without
> distracting from the picture.
The big arrow are closer to the mouse than the smaller arrows at the
bottom, which also require a more precise positioning. It's more easy
and convenient to click on these big arrows.
> These popup arrows are cooler in some
> way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
> they having to be fished for with mice.
The purpose is to make navigation easier. But if they are perceived as
ugly, I can make them less apparent for instance by making them more
transparent and/or reducing the size and/or moving them out of the
image.
says...
> btw, why do you want the big overlaying arrows, they look ugly and
> distracting when visible?
Interesting, first time somebody is complaining about the arrows.
> distracting when visible?
> What is actually wrong with simple normal
> nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
> so many other things are there permanently on every page without
> distracting from the picture.
bottom, which also require a more precise positioning. It's more easy
and convenient to click on these big arrows.
> These popup arrows are cooler in some
> way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
> they having to be fished for with mice.
ugly, I can make them less apparent for instance by making them more
transparent and/or reducing the size and/or moving them out of the
image.
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 13, 2012, 4:15:08 PM2/13/12
to
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
>
> No, not at all. :-) I find them ugly and distracting. Whoever invented
> them should be invited to a hanging ceremony.
>
>> I see them as unnecessary and
>> even not particular user friendly, they having to be fished for with
>> mice.
>
> Trouble is, if one is not accustomed to them, one will not bother to go
> fishing with the mice and surmise there's only one image to see.
>
Unfortunately they seem to be part of the "web2.0" push and people
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
>
> No, not at all. :-) I find them ugly and distracting. Whoever invented
> them should be invited to a hanging ceremony.
>
>> I see them as unnecessary and
>> even not particular user friendly, they having to be fished for with
>> mice.
>
> Trouble is, if one is not accustomed to them, one will not bother to go
> fishing with the mice and surmise there's only one image to see.
>
expect them because of the likes of Wastebook, oops, Facebook ;-)
dorayme
Feb 13, 2012, 4:59:58 PM2/13/12
to
In article <MPG.29a399bd7...@news.supernews.com>,
things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
I am unusually sensitive.
These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
enjoy the next picture. <g>
About the nice designed ones, I think you refer to them above, that
say 'prev' and 'next'? For me they *are* placed well enough and even
have the nice advantage that I can leave my mouse near the 'next' one,
the cursor far from your pictures.
But you can move them to what you and others might consider are more
convenient places. There are advantages of convenience in placing them
*together* and *directly under* your pictures. Perhaps consider this
and then no need for all the fancy apparatus needed for the popups.
> > These popup arrows are cooler in some
> > way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
> > they having to be fished for with mice.
>
> The purpose is to make navigation easier. But if they are perceived as
> ugly, I can make them less apparent for instance by making them more
> transparent and/or reducing the size and/or moving them out of the
> image.
I think it is a bad idea, but that is just my opinion. You already
have a nice navigation. You have nice pictures. You should be as happy
as Larry, Bob should be your uncle. What is it with you humans
already, always wanting more and more? <g>
--
dorayme
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-8D94FE...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
> > btw, why do you want the big overlaying arrows, they look ugly and
> > distracting when visible?
>
> Interesting, first time somebody is complaining about the arrows.
>
> > What is actually wrong with simple normal
> > nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
> > so many other things are there permanently on every page without
> > distracting from the picture.
>
> The big arrow are closer to the mouse than the smaller arrows at the
> bottom, which also require a more precise positioning. It's more easy
> and convenient to click on these big arrows.
>
Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
> In article <dorayme-8D94FE...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
> > btw, why do you want the big overlaying arrows, they look ugly and
> > distracting when visible?
>
> Interesting, first time somebody is complaining about the arrows.
>
> > What is actually wrong with simple normal
> > nice arrows underneath the picture that are there permanently just as
> > so many other things are there permanently on every page without
> > distracting from the picture.
>
> The big arrow are closer to the mouse than the smaller arrows at the
> bottom, which also require a more precise positioning. It's more easy
> and convenient to click on these big arrows.
>
things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
I am unusually sensitive.
These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
enjoy the next picture. <g>
About the nice designed ones, I think you refer to them above, that
say 'prev' and 'next'? For me they *are* placed well enough and even
have the nice advantage that I can leave my mouse near the 'next' one,
the cursor far from your pictures.
But you can move them to what you and others might consider are more
convenient places. There are advantages of convenience in placing them
*together* and *directly under* your pictures. Perhaps consider this
and then no need for all the fancy apparatus needed for the popups.
> > These popup arrows are cooler in some
> > way? I see them as unnecessary and even not particular user friendly,
> > they having to be fished for with mice.
>
> The purpose is to make navigation easier. But if they are perceived as
> ugly, I can make them less apparent for instance by making them more
> transparent and/or reducing the size and/or moving them out of the
> image.
have a nice navigation. You have nice pictures. You should be as happy
as Larry, Bob should be your uncle. What is it with you humans
already, always wanting more and more? <g>
--
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Feb 13, 2012, 5:02:18 PM2/13/12
to
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
>>
>> No, not at all. :-) I find them ugly and distracting. Whoever
>> invented them should be invited to a hanging ceremony.
>>
>>> I see them as unnecessary and
>>> even not particular user friendly, they having to be fished for with
>>> mice.
>>
>> Trouble is, if one is not accustomed to them, one will not bother to go
>> fishing with the mice and surmise there's only one image to see.
>
> Unfortunately they seem to be part of the "web2.0" push and people
> expect them because of the likes of Wastebook, oops, Facebook ;-)
..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> These popup arrows are cooler in some way?
>>
>> No, not at all. :-) I find them ugly and distracting. Whoever
>> invented them should be invited to a hanging ceremony.
>>
>>> I see them as unnecessary and
>>> even not particular user friendly, they having to be fished for with
>>> mice.
>>
>> Trouble is, if one is not accustomed to them, one will not bother to go
>> fishing with the mice and surmise there's only one image to see.
>
> Unfortunately they seem to be part of the "web2.0" push and people
> expect them because of the likes of Wastebook, oops, Facebook ;-)
have a Wastebook account?
('Wastebook.' I like that. <g>)
Alfred Molon
Feb 13, 2012, 5:58:27 PM2/13/12
to
In article <dorayme-2487D6...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
says...
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
says...
> Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
> things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
> I am unusually sensitive.
>
> These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
> shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
> enjoy the next picture. <g>
Now the arrows are outside the image:
> things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
> I am unusually sensitive.
>
> These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
> shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
> enjoy the next picture. <g>
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 13, 2012, 6:24:25 PM2/13/12
to
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <dorayme-2487D6...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
>> Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
>> things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
>> I am unusually sensitive.
>>
>> These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
>> shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
>> enjoy the next picture. <g>
>
> Now the arrows are outside the image:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
>
> Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
> In article <dorayme-2487D6...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
>> Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
>> things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
>> I am unusually sensitive.
>>
>> These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
>> shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
>> enjoy the next picture. <g>
>
> Now the arrows are outside the image:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
>
> Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
depending on the image size.[1].
I'd have the navigation links (the numbers and the <<Prev, Next>> links)
at the top. Either that, or a nice, big, pair of arrows somewhere that
never move. This can be in addition to the others of course.
BTW, nice site. Nice pictures. Just chipping in.
[1] Also, the big arrow aren't active unless there is mouse activity (so
even when two images are the same size I seem to need two click to move
on). The behaviour is different depending on exactly where the cursor
is, which also disconcerted me a bit.
--
Ben.
Alfred Molon
Feb 13, 2012, 6:40:27 PM2/13/12
to
In article
<0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
Bacarisse says...
always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
probably not in a good place.
> I'd have the navigation links (the numbers and the <<Prev, Next>> links)
> at the top. Either that, or a nice, big, pair of arrows somewhere that
> never move. This can be in addition to the others of course.
That can be achieved by making the entire image are clickable, with the
link set to the next image. It's just that you can't go back this way -
only forward.
> BTW, nice site. Nice pictures. Just chipping in.
>
> [1] Also, the big arrow aren't active unless there is mouse activity (so
> even when two images are the same size I seem to need two click to move
> on). The behaviour is different depending on exactly where the cursor
> is, which also disconcerted me a bit.
Strange, the big arrows should appear whenever the mouse is on the big
image.
<0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
Bacarisse says...
> Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
> able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
> mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
> depending on the image size.[1].
There are navigation arrows in the top menu bar in the top right corner,
> able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
> mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
> depending on the image size.[1].
always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
probably not in a good place.
> I'd have the navigation links (the numbers and the <<Prev, Next>> links)
> at the top. Either that, or a nice, big, pair of arrows somewhere that
> never move. This can be in addition to the others of course.
link set to the next image. It's just that you can't go back this way -
only forward.
> BTW, nice site. Nice pictures. Just chipping in.
>
> [1] Also, the big arrow aren't active unless there is mouse activity (so
> even when two images are the same size I seem to need two click to move
> on). The behaviour is different depending on exactly where the cursor
> is, which also disconcerted me a bit.
image.
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 13, 2012, 7:54:59 PM2/13/12
to
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article
> <0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
> Bacarisse says...
>> Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
>> able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
>> mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
>> depending on the image size.[1].
>
> There are navigation arrows in the top menu bar in the top right corner,
> always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
> probably not in a good place.
<goes to look...> Ah, yes! Not where I'd expect and a little muted.
> In article
> <0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
> Bacarisse says...
>> Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
>> able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
>> mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
>> depending on the image size.[1].
>
> There are navigation arrows in the top menu bar in the top right corner,
> always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
> probably not in a good place.
I'd put a graphic => and <= under "Contact" and under the search box.
>> I'd have the navigation links (the numbers and the <<Prev, Next>> links)
>> at the top. Either that, or a nice, big, pair of arrows somewhere that
>> never move. This can be in addition to the others of course.
>
> That can be achieved by making the entire image are clickable, with the
> link set to the next image. It's just that you can't go back this way -
> only forward.
>> BTW, nice site. Nice pictures. Just chipping in.
>>
>> [1] Also, the big arrow aren't active unless there is mouse activity (so
>> even when two images are the same size I seem to need two click to move
>> on). The behaviour is different depending on exactly where the cursor
>> is, which also disconcerted me a bit.
>
> Strange, the big arrows should appear whenever the mouse is on the big
> image.
click on the arrow, not the image (though I can now see that a portion
of the image close to the arrow is also active). When I do this, the
next image appears and my mouse remains outside the image even if it's
the same size as the previous one. I have to more the mouse into the
image to get the arrow to appear again, and then I move it back out to
the arrow because that looks like where I should click.
Alternatively, if I click *inside* the image, and leave the mouse there,
no arrows appear unless I move the mouse or click again.
--
Ben.
Gene Wirchenko
Feb 13, 2012, 9:11:16 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>have a Wastebook account?
>('Wastebook.' I like that. <g>)
How about "Fazebook"? I am sure that we could come up with many
nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
about, I do not want an account.
Sincerely,
Gene "the Good Ship Gene steering to avoid the Zuckerburg" Wirchenko
<a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>have a Wastebook account?
>('Wastebook.' I like that. <g>)
nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
about, I do not want an account.
Sincerely,
Gene "the Good Ship Gene steering to avoid the Zuckerburg" Wirchenko
dorayme
Feb 13, 2012, 9:26:42 PM2/13/12
to
In article <MPG.29a3bdd7d...@news.supernews.com>,
having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
--
dorayme
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
> Bacarisse says...
> > Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
> > able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
> > mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
> > depending on the image size.[1].
>
> There are navigation arrows in the top menu bar in the top right corner,
> always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
> probably not in a good place.
Not necessarily. They have the advantage of staying put. Instead of
> In article
> <0.0392f352539eec0ff1b7.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
> Bacarisse says...
> > Just another user's perspective... For an image gallery, I like to be
> > able to click, click, click to go though the images without moving the
> > mouse. Both your big arrows and the "Next >>" link below, move
> > depending on the image size.[1].
>
> There are navigation arrows in the top menu bar in the top right corner,
> always in the same position, but if you haven't found them, they are
> probably not in a good place.
having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 13, 2012, 9:31:04 PM2/13/12
to
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>>> ..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>> have a Wastebook account?
>
>> ('Wastebook.' I like that.<g>)
>
> How about "Fazebook"? I am sure that we could come up with many
> nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
> about, I do not want an account.
Ditto. Plus the cookie as everlasting as herpes.
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>>> ..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>> have a Wastebook account?
>
>> ('Wastebook.' I like that.<g>)
>
> How about "Fazebook"? I am sure that we could come up with many
> nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
> about, I do not want an account.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene "the Good Ship Gene steering to avoid the Zuckerburg" Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
Feb 13, 2012, 9:41:17 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:31:04 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>> <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>>> ..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>>> have a Wastebook account?
>>
>>> ('Wastebook.' I like that.<g>)
>>
>> How about "Fazebook"? I am sure that we could come up with many
>> nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
>> about, I do not want an account.
>
>Ditto. Plus the cookie as everlasting as herpes.
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene "the Good Ship Gene steering to avoid the Zuckerburg" Wirchenko
>
>Hmmm are you a friend of Mike Yetto?
No.
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>> <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>>> ..but what about the remaining two thousand of us on the planet who don't
>>>> have a Wastebook account?
>>
>>> ('Wastebook.' I like that.<g>)
>>
>> How about "Fazebook"? I am sure that we could come up with many
>> nasty names. With all of the FB security issues that I have read
>> about, I do not want an account.
>
>Ditto. Plus the cookie as everlasting as herpes.
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene "the Good Ship Gene steering to avoid the Zuckerburg" Wirchenko
>
>Hmmm are you a friend of Mike Yetto?
Who is Mike Yetto? A Google search on his name has a Facebook
page as the first hit. I do not know enough to know whether this is
irony.
I am a frequent contributor to the RISKS List. Most of what I
submit comes from computing industry articles. There are all too many
reports of YA Facebook security issue.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
Feb 13, 2012, 9:45:54 PM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:54:00 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I've seen something similar on some sites and I guess this can be done
>with Java, but how?
Please do not require Java. I am liable to bounce on gratuitous
Java use due to security considerations.
I do not like that I have to mouse about to get arrows. That
violates the Law of Least Astonishment. That the arrows are not
always in the same place makes it worse.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I've seen something similar on some sites and I guess this can be done
>with Java, but how?
Please do not require Java. I am liable to bounce on gratuitous
Java use due to security considerations.
I do not like that I have to mouse about to get arrows. That
violates the Law of Least Astonishment. That the arrows are not
always in the same place makes it worse.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Jonathan N. Little
Feb 13, 2012, 9:55:39 PM2/13/12
to
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Who is Mike Yetto? A Google search on his name has a Facebook
> page as the first hit. I do not know enough to know whether this is
> irony.
>
> I am a frequent contributor to the RISKS List. Most of what I
> submit comes from computing industry articles. There are all too many
> reports of YA Facebook security issue.
>
Over on the Linux NGs that always injects a quip between his first and
> Who is Mike Yetto? A Google search on his name has a Facebook
> page as the first hit. I do not know enough to know whether this is
> irony.
>
> I am a frequent contributor to the RISKS List. Most of what I
> submit comes from computing industry articles. There are all too many
> reports of YA Facebook security issue.
>
last name in the fashion you that just did...
Gene Wirchenko
Feb 13, 2012, 11:34:03 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:55:39 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> Who is Mike Yetto? A Google search on his name has a Facebook
>> page as the first hit. I do not know enough to know whether this is
>> irony.
>>
>> I am a frequent contributor to the RISKS List. Most of what I
>> submit comes from computing industry articles. There are all too many
>> reports of YA Facebook security issue.
>Over on the Linux NGs that always injects a quip between his first and
>last name in the fashion you that just did...
No, I have done it independently, but these days, I follow David
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> Who is Mike Yetto? A Google search on his name has a Facebook
>> page as the first hit. I do not know enough to know whether this is
>> irony.
>>
>> I am a frequent contributor to the RISKS List. Most of what I
>> submit comes from computing industry articles. There are all too many
>> reports of YA Facebook security issue.
>Over on the Linux NGs that always injects a quip between his first and
>last name in the fashion you that just did...
DeLaney in rec.arts.sf.written who often does it.
Sincerely,
Gene "TODO: insert witty quip here" Wirchenko
Hot-Text
Feb 14, 2012, 2:23:00 AM2/14/12
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgpe4m$3vc$1...@dont-email.me...
> dorayme wrote:
>> In article<jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
>>
>> Nice picture!<g>
>
> Yes, since I never delete anything it was still laying around since that
> long ago post...I think it was about browser vs image software rescaling...
>
>>
>> Boy, was I not paying attention when I read original post!
>>
>
> Nether was Hot-Text it seems!
>
Yes Jonathan I did miss it too>>
but at the time I was working on same << >> images,
that look like the ones on Web-Page that the OP give:
< http://hot-text.ath.cx:81/editor/img/r-l/ >
Then the OP say that your Page was Cool,
may me go back to your page,
So I said to my self MF it,
and do not post the link... to R-L.
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
> dorayme wrote:
>> In article<jgp4ut$bru$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> <http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/slideshow>
>>
>> Nice picture!<g>
>
> Yes, since I never delete anything it was still laying around since that
> long ago post...I think it was about browser vs image software rescaling...
>
>>
>> Boy, was I not paying attention when I read original post!
>>
>
> Nether was Hot-Text it seems!
>
Yes Jonathan I did miss it too>>
but at the time I was working on same << >> images,
that look like the ones on Web-Page that the OP give:
< http://hot-text.ath.cx:81/editor/img/r-l/ >
Then the OP say that your Page was Cool,
may me go back to your page,
So I said to my self MF it,
and do not post the link... to R-L.
--
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Peter
Feb 14, 2012, 10:57:34 AM2/14/12
to
In article <MPG.29a3b3fa8...@news.supernews.com>,
alfred...@yahoo.com says...
to the html coding...
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
alfred...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <dorayme-2487D6...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
> > Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
> > things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
> > I am unusually sensitive.
> >
> > These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
> > shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
> > enjoy the next picture. <g>
>
> Now the arrows are outside the image:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
>
> Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
>
Personally, I think it look good. I think you should keep it. Now, back
> says...
> > Is it? At what cost, to blot your nice pictures with these big ugly
> > things every single time one looks at them and moves forward? Perhaps
> > I am unusually sensitive.
> >
> > These popups leave lasting impressions on my visual system, I have to
> > shake my head to get rid of the after-images of them to settle down to
> > enjoy the next picture. <g>
>
> Now the arrows are outside the image:
> http://www.molon.de/galleries/Iran/Kashan/Tabatabei/img.php?pic=12
>
> Also my wife complained about the arrows inside the image...
>
to the html coding...
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Alfred Molon
Feb 14, 2012, 5:51:55 PM2/14/12
to
In article
<0.ab532cd4d445fa5677a5.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
Bacarisse says...
back inside, but much smaller than before and semi-transparent. Should
impact less on the image and in any case you can always take the cursor
out of the image.
<0.ab532cd4d445fa5677a5.2012...@bsb.me.uk>, Ben
Bacarisse says...
> Yes, but that's not intuitive because they are outside the image.
Yes, I noticed that. The arrows must be inside the image. They are now
back inside, but much smaller than before and semi-transparent. Should
impact less on the image and in any case you can always take the cursor
out of the image.
Alfred Molon
Feb 14, 2012, 6:09:26 PM2/14/12
to
In article <dorayme-459CE4...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
says...
level higher) on the image. It allows people to concentrate on the image
instead of having to look for the controls in the top menu bar.
But it's also a good idea to make these navigation arrows in the top
menu bar much bigger, for instance by taking away the round logo and
using the space for arrows.
The same navigation mechanism would also be on the thumbnail pages, to
go back and forth between pages of thumbnails. Arrows would then need to
be duplicated also at the bottom of the pages, so that people do not
have to scroll up if they scrolled to the bottom.
The only question mark is then where to put my logo or "brand identity",
something like "photos by Alfred" or "molon.de".
says...
> Not necessarily. They have the advantage of staying put. Instead of
> having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
> a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
> all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
Well, I like the idea of having navigation controls (prev, next, one
> having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
> a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
> all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
level higher) on the image. It allows people to concentrate on the image
instead of having to look for the controls in the top menu bar.
But it's also a good idea to make these navigation arrows in the top
menu bar much bigger, for instance by taking away the round logo and
using the space for arrows.
The same navigation mechanism would also be on the thumbnail pages, to
go back and forth between pages of thumbnails. Arrows would then need to
be duplicated also at the bottom of the pages, so that people do not
have to scroll up if they scrolled to the bottom.
The only question mark is then where to put my logo or "brand identity",
something like "photos by Alfred" or "molon.de".
dorayme
Feb 14, 2012, 6:35:38 PM2/14/12
to
In article <MPG.29a508139...@news.supernews.com>,
> It allows people to concentrate on the image
> instead of having to look for the controls in the top menu bar.
>
I can't see this myself. Why would the absence of hovering navigation
stop concentration? Why would their presence not add to the
distractions there are in the situation? One needs to move the mouse
and one needs to move it to possibly different places if the pics are
differently sized or aspected and one needs to be doing this all the
time. What could possibly be simpler and clearer than the permanent
arrows at the top, especially if they are centralised and enlarges a
bit?
Anyway, the desire on the whole modern world to think more is more is
nothing I can do anything about. I watch helplessly and wait for the
day when I rule the world. Then, everything will be different and
simpler. There will even be a far smaller gap between rich and poor, a
little extra feature I will throw in for the benefit of humans and to
mark out my reign.
> But it's also a good idea to make these navigation arrows in the top
> menu bar much bigger, for instance by taking away the round logo and
> using the space for arrows.
> The same navigation mechanism would also be on the thumbnail pages, to
> go back and forth between pages of thumbnails. Arrows would then need to
> be duplicated also at the bottom of the pages, so that people do not
> have to scroll up if they scrolled to the bottom.
There is no real end to the facilities you can add. I once made each
pic a link to the next and *personally* found it convenient.
> The only question mark is then where to put my logo or "brand identity",
> something like "photos by Alfred" or "molon.de".
Anywhere but smack bang on your pictures. Keep it simple, keep it
uncluttered.
btw make your portrait pics smaller so that people do not have to
scroll to see (you can always link to bigger for those who want).
--
dorayme
Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-459CE4...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
> > Not necessarily. They have the advantage of staying put. Instead of
> > having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
> > a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
> > all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
>
> Well, I like the idea of having navigation controls (prev, next, one
> level higher) on the image.
I am used to people disagreeing with me. It's OK!
> In article <dorayme-459CE4...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> says...
> > Not necessarily. They have the advantage of staying put. Instead of
> > having so many ways to go back and forth, why not make those top ones
> > a little bigger and maybe centralise them a little and dispense with
> > all other ways to do the same thing. Less is often more.
>
> Well, I like the idea of having navigation controls (prev, next, one
> level higher) on the image.
> It allows people to concentrate on the image
> instead of having to look for the controls in the top menu bar.
>
stop concentration? Why would their presence not add to the
distractions there are in the situation? One needs to move the mouse
and one needs to move it to possibly different places if the pics are
differently sized or aspected and one needs to be doing this all the
time. What could possibly be simpler and clearer than the permanent
arrows at the top, especially if they are centralised and enlarges a
bit?
Anyway, the desire on the whole modern world to think more is more is
nothing I can do anything about. I watch helplessly and wait for the
day when I rule the world. Then, everything will be different and
simpler. There will even be a far smaller gap between rich and poor, a
little extra feature I will throw in for the benefit of humans and to
mark out my reign.
> But it's also a good idea to make these navigation arrows in the top
> menu bar much bigger, for instance by taking away the round logo and
> using the space for arrows.
> The same navigation mechanism would also be on the thumbnail pages, to
> go back and forth between pages of thumbnails. Arrows would then need to
> be duplicated also at the bottom of the pages, so that people do not
> have to scroll up if they scrolled to the bottom.
pic a link to the next and *personally* found it convenient.
> The only question mark is then where to put my logo or "brand identity",
> something like "photos by Alfred" or "molon.de".
uncluttered.
btw make your portrait pics smaller so that people do not have to
scroll to see (you can always link to bigger for those who want).
--
dorayme
0 new messages