 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
I'm testing a new way to show images in full size for my gallery on my
website. It uses JavaScript, but to my understanding, JavaScript is so
widely used now that virtually noone have it turned off (or else there would
be tons of sites they couldn't use). Anyway, it has an acceptable fallback
behaviour.
I'd appreciate if you would test it and let me know what you think about it:
http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/zoomtest.html (only implemented on that
particular page)
The current (old) behaviour can be seen here for comparison:
http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/
Which do you prefer?
The JavaScript is derived from the code at the XaoS gallery:
http://wmi.math.u-szeged.hu/xaos/doku.php?id=galleries:main
...which is powered by DokuWiki, which is licensed under the GPL, so it
should be ok to use it.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> I'd appreciate if you would test it and let me know what you think about it:
> http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/zoomtest.html (only implemented on that
> particular page)
Yeah, that's kinda neat.
I guess the only disadvantage is that you can't easily use tabbed
browsing with it. But that doesn't appear to be a big issue.
[I wish my monitor didn't suck so much. Half of the images come out near
total black. Damn sucky thing...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:49:38 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>[I wish my monitor didn't suck so much. Half of the images come out near
>total black. Damn sucky thing...]
I think that you are too honest. I've never heard of the IT guru who did not
have good equipment. I'm sure that there must be a reason to replace your
monitor or a need for a *hot spare*.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>[I wish my monitor didn't suck so much. Half of the images come out near
>>total black. Damn sucky thing...]
>
> I think that you are too honest. I've never heard of the IT guru who did
> not
> have good equipment. I'm sure that there must be a reason to replace your
> monitor or a need for a *hot spare*.
Just repeatedly drop it on the floor one morning from progressively higher
starting points until it doesn't work. Then order a shiny new 24" LCD ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:22:19 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>Just repeatedly drop it on the floor one morning from progressively higher
>starting points until it doesn't work. Then order a shiny new 24" LCD ;-)
Or turn the brightness down from the inside.
I used to do that in the old days with oscilloscopes, turn down the brightness
and remove the power light. It was a trade test to see how long it would take
the victim to find the fault.
I did grow up a bit :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [I wish my monitor didn't suck so much. Half of the images come out near
>> total black. Damn sucky thing...]
>
> I think that you are too honest. I've never heard of the IT guru who did not
> have good equipment. I'm sure that there must be a reason to replace your
> monitor or a need for a *hot spare*.
Guru? Heh. Not quite... ;-)
Besides, I want to save all the budget so we can buy *important* things
- like replacing all those 500 MHz PCs for example.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm testing a new way to show images in full size for my gallery on my
> website. It uses JavaScript, but to my understanding, JavaScript is so
> widely used now that virtually noone have it turned off...
....
> http://runevision.com
First of all, THANK YOU for being considerate of the viewer in your site design
and not just assuming that everyone is obligated to leave JavaScript switched
on. I’m one of those who generally leave it switched off and turn it on only
when I actually need it to do something on a site I really trust. I understand
your predicament as I have had to use it myself in designs a couple of times in
order to comply with clients’ needs.
The “fallback behavior” is, IMHO, more than adequate. Although I personally
advocate JavaScript-free design where possible, your version with JavaScript is
a well-designed compromise that I would have no cause to complain about. Oh
BTW, nice site generally.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:28:48 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Besides, I want to save all the budget so we can buy *important* things
>- like replacing all those 500 MHz PCs for example.
I understand your point of view but …
Who is the most important person at your site - YOU.
Who will get no respect if they look as if they are working on an Oxfam hand me
down - YOU.
Who is responsible for supplying equipment fit for purpose - THEM.
Get what you can and don't worry about other people's gear unless you are in
charge of the budget. If they need better kit then they should be able to
justify it.
If I were Cute Girl, I wouldn't be seen dead talking to someone who has a
monitor as bad as you describe.
I hope that you don't think that I'm getting at you but this is your first job
and you seem not to know what is expected of you. Personally I think that your
company are taking a loan of you. You are worth more than you are getting.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Besides, I want to save all the budget so we can buy *important* things
>> - like replacing all those 500 MHz PCs for example.
>
> I understand your point of view but …
> Who is the most important person at your site - YOU.
Um... no, technically it's the people who sit in the lab and actually
generate income. Everybody else is auxhilery to them, technically.
> Who will get no respect if they look as if they are working on an Oxfam hand me
> down - YOU.
Heh. I'm the youngest person here. And I'm a computer nerd. I get no
respect anyway. ;-)
> Who is responsible for supplying equipment fit for purpose - THEM.
They don't seem to take that too seriously. [Although in the last few
days, it seems somebody has twisted the arm of the director of finance
to get more new PCs into the UK. Pitty they are all coming from Dell...]
> If I were Cute Girl, I wouldn't be seen dead talking to someone who has a
> monitor as bad as you describe.
LOL! If you were Cute QA Girl, then... damn... we'd be making out right
now! :-D Cos she's quite hot...
> I hope that you don't think that I'm getting at you but this is your first job
> and you seem not to know what is expected of you. Personally I think that your
> company are taking a loan of you. You are worth more than you are getting.
Benny said something similar. Apparently his son earns more than me by
stacking shelves at Tesco. Oh well...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I guess the only disadvantage is that you can't easily use tabbed
> browsing with it. But that doesn't appear to be a big issue.
I always thought the point was to keep people from saving the image
without a lot of work.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47863c26@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>> I guess the only disadvantage is that you can't easily use tabbed
>> browsing with it. But that doesn't appear to be a big issue.
>
> I always thought the point was to keep people from saving the image
> without a lot of work.
Huh? No, only in a few cases I think. With the approach I have, it couldn't
be simpler to save the image. Right clicking on the link to the image works
and right clicking on the image itself does too.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:21:18 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I understand your point of view but …
>> Who is the most important person at your site - YOU.
>
>Um... no, technically it's the people who sit in the lab and actually
>generate income. Everybody else is auxhilery to them, technically.
There's your problem (or at least one of them :) you believe that. You are the
most important person to you and you are working to earn your own living and not
just to keep the company going.
>> Who will get no respect if they look as if they are working on an Oxfam hand me
>> down - YOU.
>
>Heh. I'm the youngest person here. And I'm a computer nerd. I get no
>respect anyway. ;-)
That is because you've got a crap monitor
>> Who is responsible for supplying equipment fit for purpose - THEM.
>
>They don't seem to take that too seriously. [Although in the last few
>days, it seems somebody has twisted the arm of the director of finance
>to get more new PCs into the UK. Pitty they are all coming from Dell...]
Don't bitch about that, rejoice you're getting more hardware.
>> If I were Cute Girl, I wouldn't be seen dead talking to someone who has a
>> monitor as bad as you describe.
>
>LOL! If you were Cute QA Girl, then... damn... we'd be making out right
>now! :-D Cos she's quite hot...
But am I?
>> I hope that you don't think that I'm getting at you but this is your first job
>> and you seem not to know what is expected of you. Personally I think that your
>> company are taking a loan of you. You are worth more than you are getting.
>
>Benny said something similar. Apparently his son earns more than me by
>stacking shelves at Tesco. Oh well...
You're letting the side down then. And I bet Benny's son has more chance of a
night out than you do.
If you are not going to get money get a better working environment, you are
important, you know.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> I'm testing a new way to show images in full size for my gallery on my
> website. It uses JavaScript, but to my understanding, JavaScript is so
> widely used now that virtually noone have it turned off (or else there would
> be tons of sites they couldn't use).
I have it turned off. NoScript plugin disables Javascript for all pages
except those explicitly on the whitelist. "Virtually nobody has
Javascript turned off, so let's not bother about it" is like saying
"everyone has a lot of CPU and RAM nowadays so why bother optimizing".
> Anyway, it has an acceptable fallback behaviour.
More than acceptable, compared to other sites...
Comments about the zoom itself:
The background would look better as a real transparency; the black/white
1px checker looks ugly. You could leave it as fallback if the browser
doesn't support real transparency, though.
The X button is too small.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:45:19 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>Which do you prefer?
I like it but in IE 7 when you change the Page Zoom during the popup some thing
breaks and you get a page similar to the original site, with comments. It
doesn't happen every time and it happened mostly when going from Zoom 150% to
75%
IE 7 then started to hog resources and I had to shut it down (twice). In fact
I'm going to reboot. :)
It's good to see you back.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> I'm testing a new way to show images in full size for my gallery on my
> website. It uses JavaScript, but to my understanding, JavaScript is so
> widely used now that virtually noone have it turned off (or else there would
> be tons of sites they couldn't use). Anyway, it has an acceptable fallback
> behaviour.
I also have it off using NoScript. I only enable it if I *know* there
is something worth seeing (i.e. quite often).
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> Huh? No, only in a few cases I think. With the approach I have, it couldn't
> be simpler to save the image. Right clicking on the link to the image works
> and right clicking on the image itself does too.
Cool. Might be different code with the same effect. Now that I think of
it, I think the other one I saw was Flash.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> Comments about the zoom itself:
>
> The background would look better as a real transparency; the black/white
> 1px checker looks ugly. You could leave it as fallback if the browser
> doesn't support real transparency, though.
The odd thing is that this seems to be supported by the code (it even comes
with a black, 50% transparent image), but for some reason is not used, even
in Firefox. I'll have to investigate further to find out why.
> The X button is too small.
The clickable area is larger than the visible X itself. I don't think I can
make the visible X bigger without making the frame thicker too, and I don't
want that.
Thanks for the comments!
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:45:19 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom>
> wrote:
>
>>Which do you prefer?
>
> I like it but in IE 7 when you change the Page Zoom during the popup some
> thing
> breaks and you get a page similar to the original site, with comments.
That sounds odd.
> It doesn't happen every time and it happened mostly when going from
> Zoom 150% to 75% IE 7 then started to hog resources and I had to
> shut it down (twice). In fact I'm going to reboot. :)
Hm. :( Unfortunately I can't test in IE7 right now, since I have IE6. As
long as more people have IE6 than IE7, I'm going to keep it, and it isn't
possible to have both on the same machine without putting a lot of effort
into it.
> It's good to see you back.
I don't think I've been gone? :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:03:10 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:45:19 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Which do you prefer?
>>
>> I like it but in IE 7 when you change the Page Zoom during the popup some
>> thing
>> breaks and you get a page similar to the original site, with comments.
>
>That sounds odd.
>
It does doesn't it.
>> It doesn't happen every time and it happened mostly when going from
>> Zoom 150% to 75% IE 7 then started to hog resources and I had to
>> shut it down (twice). In fact I'm going to reboot. :)
>
>Hm. :( Unfortunately I can't test in IE7 right now, since I have IE6. As
>long as more people have IE6 than IE7, I'm going to keep it, and it isn't
>possible to have both on the same machine without putting a lot of effort
>into it.
I'll try it with Firefox but it might be at my end. I've been having problems
since I've been using a WiFi connection.
>> It's good to see you back.
>
>I don't think I've been gone? :)
>
Quote:
"Gee, has it really been 6 years since my last image my 3d gallery?"
:)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> I'll try it with Firefox but it might be at my end. I've been having
> problems
> since I've been using a WiFi connection.
Ok, thanks. I'll try it in IE7 next time I'm at uni.
>>> It's good to see you back.
>>
>>I don't think I've been gone? :)
>
> Quote:
> "Gee, has it really been 6 years since my last image my 3d gallery?"
> :)
Ah, but that's mostly because I had been doing animations instead. :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd appreciate if you would test it and let me know what you think about it:
> http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/zoomtest.html (only implemented on that
> particular page)
>
> The current (old) behaviour can be seen here for comparison:
> http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/
>
> Which do you prefer?
The old one. With the new one you can't click X images to open at new
tabs (yes, I do that often, when I'm checking some image gallery: open
them, wait a while and browse the tabs without noticeable delay) and (at
least with Seamonkey) the popup closes when you'll hit the background of
the page (ie. to get wheel-scrolling working).
> Rune
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen escribió:
> The old one. With the new one you can't click X images to open at new
> tabs (yes, I do that often, when I'm checking some image gallery: open
> them, wait a while and browse the tabs without noticeable delay)
I can middle-click images and they open in new tabs. Ctrl-leftclicking
opens a tab with the image *and* the popup, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Um... no, technically it's the people who sit in the lab and actually
> generate income. Everybody else is auxhilery to them, technically.
Technically, it's the guy who actually sells your services, not the guy
who performs them, who generates income. Everyone else is auxiliary,
including the guys actually doing the lab work.
> Benny said something similar. Apparently his son earns more than me by
> stacking shelves at Tesco. Oh well...
What do you *like* about your job, out of curiousity?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Um... no, technically it's the people who sit in the lab and actually
>> generate income. Everybody else is auxhilery to them, technically.
>
> Technically, it's the guy who actually sells your services, not the guy
> who performs them, who generates income. Everyone else is auxiliary,
> including the guys actually doing the lab work.
Mmm... perhaps that explains why we make so little money?
>> Benny said something similar. Apparently his son earns more than me by
>> stacking shelves at Tesco. Oh well...
>
> What do you *like* about your job, out of curiousity?
They give me money. Sometimes I don't have to do very much.
...yeah, I think that's the end of the list.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:31:58 +0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:03:10 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>
>>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:45:19 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which do you prefer?
>>>
>>> I like it but in IE 7 when you change the Page Zoom during the popup some
>>> thing
>>> breaks and you get a page similar to the original site, with comments.
>>
>>That sounds odd.
>>
>
>It does doesn't it.
Oh! Dear, it was finger trouble on my part. I had been clicking and viewing ok
until I clicked a link at the top of the page. That took me to your old gallery
e.g. http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/#18 out of your zoom test.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What do you *like* about your job, out of curiousity?
>
> They give me money.
Yeh, that really sets it apart from all those other jobs out there ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> What do you *like* about your job, out of curiousity?
>>
>> They give me money.
>
> Yeh, that really sets it apart from all those other jobs out there ;-)
That put a smile on my face. Thanks Scott - I needed that this morning! :-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" wrote:
> Oh! Dear, it was finger trouble on my part. I had been clicking and
> viewing ok
> until I clicked a link at the top of the page. That took me to your old
> gallery
> e.g. http://runevision.com/3d/3dgallery1/#18 out of your zoom test.
Ah, that solves the mystery. :)
Still gotta look into the page zoom probloem though.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:37:28 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>
>Still gotta look into the page zoom probloem though.
It wasn't the zooming although I thought it was. I was doing two things at once
and blamed the zooming :(
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> I can middle-click images and they open in new tabs. Ctrl-leftclicking
> opens a tab with the image *and* the popup, though.
Darn. So can I, now that you mentioned middle-click :D. Ctrl+left (which
I usually use nowadays, since my laptop has only 2-button toucpad) won't
open new tab for me.
I withdraw my rant.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
