Image Viewer - A Sin?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005.

  1. This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    dialup. <g>)

    http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/

    Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.

    Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Now killing all posts originating at GoogleGroups
    Information: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Blinky the Shark

    tm Guest

    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    > issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    > those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    > dialup. <g>)
    >
    > http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    Interesting website. What was your question again?

    > Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...

    > Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    > as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    > hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    > submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    > and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).


    Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?
    tm, Apr 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tm wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:


    >> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >> dialup. <g>)


    >> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    > Interesting website. What was your question again?


    >> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    > That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...


    >> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    >> as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    >> hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    >> submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    >> and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).


    > Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?


    I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Now killing all posts originating at GoogleGroups
    Information: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > tm wrote:
    >
    >> Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    >
    >>> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >>> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >>> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >>> dialup. <g>)

    >
    >>> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/

    >
    >> Interesting website. What was your question again?

    >
    >>> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.

    >
    >> That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...



    *LOL* What are you doing to us? We are trying to get some work done...


    >>> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    >>> as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    >>> hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    >>> submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    >>> and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).

    >
    >> Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?

    >
    > I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    > they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?



    Regarding technicalities, forms will consume more resources so they are not
    the ideal way of handling this task. Certain borwsers/devices(platforms)
    might not support them either, so it is a loss.

    When I first entered the site I did not realise it was implemented using
    forms. I actually had my mind focused on something else so don't worry
    about "view source". Since you don't deliver 'techie' news here (and
    considering the nature of the site), it will probably have 90%+ IE6 users.
    So, I wouldn't worry.

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    http://Schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Apr 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    >> tm wrote:


    >>> Blinky the Shark <> wrote:


    >>>> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >>>> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't
    >>>> about those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially
    >>>> hateful on my dialup. <g>)


    >>>> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    >>> Interesting website. What was your question again?


    >>>> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    >>> That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...


    > *LOL* What are you doing to us? We are trying to get some work done...


    :) I always like that actress on a particular sitcom, and discovered,
    today, that she also had a singing career. Investigating that, I found
    that site. My favorite images were 11 and 20, because together they
    nicely show two quite contrasting sides.

    >>>> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible
    >>>> thing, as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for
    >>>> Y? I'm not hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're
    >>>> for user's submission of data. But this little "slide viewer"
    >>>> isn't code heavy and it does work nicely (once the images are
    >>>> loaded).


    >>> Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html
    >>> technicalities?


    >> I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    >> they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?


    > Regarding technicalities, forms will consume more resources so they
    > are not the ideal way of handling this task. Certain
    > borwsers/devices(platforms) might not support them either, so it is a
    > loss.


    > When I first entered the site I did not realise it was implemented
    > using forms. I actually had my mind focused on something else so don't
    > worry about "view source". Since you don't deliver 'techie' news here
    > (and considering the nature of the site), it will probably have 90%+
    > IE6 users. So, I wouldn't worry.


    Thanks for the input, and for that input being more than a simplistic
    knee-jerk reaction. I've not an immediate need for such; this was just
    - good or bad - something that caught my eye. The code, I mean. :)

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Now killing all posts originating at GoogleGroups
    Information: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Blinky the Shark

    tm Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > tm wrote:
    > > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    > >> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    > >> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    > >> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    > >> dialup. <g>)

    >
    > >> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/

    >
    > > Interesting website. What was your question again?

    >
    > >> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.

    >
    > > That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...

    >
    > >> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    > >> as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    > >> hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    > >> submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    > >> and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).

    >
    > > Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?

    >
    > I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    > they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?


    Don't you have photoshopped sharkteeth to clean? Like you expect to
    get a serious answer from me.
    tm, Apr 15, 2005
    #6
  7. tm wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    >> tm wrote:


    >> > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    >> >> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >> >> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >> >> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >> >> dialup. <g>)


    >> >> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    >> > Interesting website. What was your question again?


    >> >> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    >> > That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...


    >> >> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    >> >> as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    >> >> hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    >> >> submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    >> >> and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).


    >> > Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?


    >> I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    >> they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?


    > Don't you have photoshopped sharkteeth to clean? Like you expect to
    > get a serious answer from me.


    While I'm familiar with the capabilities and posting styles of many of
    the regulars here, I'm not familiar with yours.

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Now killing all posts originating at GoogleGroups
    Information: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005
    #7
  8. Blinky the Shark

    tm Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > tm wrote:
    > > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > >> tm wrote:
    > >> > Blinky the Shark wrote:


    > >> >> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    > >> >> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    > >> >> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    > >> >> dialup. <g>)

    >
    > >> >> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/

    >
    > >> > Interesting website. What was your question again?

    >
    > >> >> Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.

    >
    > >> > That's somewhere east of 'whitelace'? Wait...

    >
    > >> >> Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    > >> >> as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y? I'm not
    > >> >> hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    > >> >> submission of data. But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    > >> >> and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).

    >
    > >> > Who cares, it works, right? Why get caught up in html technicalities?

    >
    > >> I do. That's why I asked. Muggings work, too, but that doesn't mean
    > >> they're a good thing. Oh, that's a technicality, right?

    >
    > > Don't you have photoshopped sharkteeth to clean? Like you expect to
    > > get a serious answer from me.

    >
    > While I'm familiar with the capabilities and posting styles of many of
    > the regulars here, I'm not familiar with yours.


    Fer gods sake, a regular here? Eeew, cooties! Hey, I just lurk in
    alt.html Blink, learnin' something now and then. But i see you around
    in ac sometimes. Figured you'd recognize me as that ruggedly handsome
    poster with the perpetually sarcastic smirk.
    Dammit, nobody ever recognizes me as the ruggedly handsome poster with
    the... perpetually... sarcastic...
    oh nevermind.
    tm, Apr 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Blinky the Shark

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    >This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >dialup. <g>)
    >
    >http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/
    >
    >Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    That's the first problem. There are seven galleries on that site. Six
    use one interface and one uses a different interface.

    >Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    >as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y?


    There are three different sets of controls here.
    The start/stop button.
    The first/previous/next/last buttons.
    The drop down menu.

    The stop/start button is fine as it is. Starting or stopping a slide
    show is a functional process and a button is appropriate.

    The first/previous/next/last buttons are dual featured - they serve as
    link substitutes when the slideshow is off and as rewind/fastforward
    controls for when the slideshow is on. If this slide show had a
    non-JavaScript fallback then they could then be text links to
    different pages and could have different colours for univisted/visited
    states thus helping the user to locate themselves.

    The drop down menu is just bad. Why should anyone pick number 2 over
    number 7? Having short descriptions of each image would be much
    better. Again, if there was a non-JavaScript fallback then ordinary
    text links with distinct colours would be helpful. A list if links has
    the advantage that the user can see all of them at once - a select
    element has a browser/OS imposed limit on how many items it shows at
    once (Opera and Firefox on WinXp only show 20 items; IE6 shows all 24;
    I'm sure that older versions of Windows had a limit of 11).

    > I'm not
    >hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    >submission of data.


    That's their primary purpose.

    >But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    >and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).


    I would have approached it differently. I would have started with an
    index page that offered the user to option of the slideshow or of
    browsing the images normally (so the page would show the first image,
    a list of descriptive links to all the other images and a
    call-to-action offering the slideshow feature - throw a designer at it
    to make it look pretty and visually balanced). In the slideshow I
    would use buttons as control, in the normal pages I would use text
    links. I wouldn't use the drop down menu in either.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Apr 15, 2005
    #9
  10. Steve Pugh wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:


    >>This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >>issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >>those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >>dialup. <g>)


    >>http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    >>Scroll top frame so you can select "Other Photos", and do so.


    > That's the first problem. There are seven galleries on that site. Six
    > use one interface and one uses a different interface.


    >>Is the use of a form to make this little image viewer a horrible thing,
    >>as I suspect -- use of something for X that's intended for Y?


    > There are three different sets of controls here.
    > The start/stop button.
    > The first/previous/next/last buttons.
    > The drop down menu.


    > The stop/start button is fine as it is. Starting or stopping a slide
    > show is a functional process and a button is appropriate.


    > The first/previous/next/last buttons are dual featured - they serve as
    > link substitutes when the slideshow is off and as rewind/fastforward
    > controls for when the slideshow is on. If this slide show had a
    > non-JavaScript fallback then they could then be text links to
    > different pages and could have different colours for univisted/visited
    > states thus helping the user to locate themselves.


    > The drop down menu is just bad. Why should anyone pick number 2 over
    > number 7? Having short descriptions of each image would be much
    > better. Again, if there was a non-JavaScript fallback then ordinary
    > text links with distinct colours would be helpful. A list if links has
    > the advantage that the user can see all of them at once - a select
    > element has a browser/OS imposed limit on how many items it shows at
    > once (Opera and Firefox on WinXp only show 20 items; IE6 shows all 24;
    > I'm sure that older versions of Windows had a limit of 11).


    Datapoint: in FF Linux and Opera Linux I see all 24.

    >> I'm not
    >>hip to forms, and my impression of them is that they're for user's
    >>submission of data.


    > That's their primary purpose.


    >>But this little "slide viewer" isn't code heavy
    >>and it does work nicely (once the images are loaded).


    > I would have approached it differently. I would have started with an
    > index page that offered the user to option of the slideshow or of
    > browsing the images normally (so the page would show the first image,
    > a list of descriptive links to all the other images and a
    > call-to-action offering the slideshow feature - throw a designer at it
    > to make it look pretty and visually balanced). In the slideshow I
    > would use buttons as control, in the normal pages I would use text
    > links. I wouldn't use the drop down menu in either.


    Thanks, Steve.

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Now killing all posts originating at GoogleGroups
    Information: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 15, 2005
    #10
  11. While the city slept, Blinky the Shark () feverishly
    typed...

    > This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    > issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    > those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    > dialup. <g>)
    >
    > http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    Arrrghhhh! Not only frames and an unstoppable background song (and a pretty
    dreadful one at that!), but it also resizes my browser! nnnnnnnnnnnnnnghhhh!
    ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Apr 18, 2005
    #11
  12. nice.guy.nige wrote:

    > While the city slept, Blinky the Shark ()
    > feverishly typed...


    >> This site uses both embedded music and frames. Please ignore those
    >> issues for my question, if you will, because my question isn't about
    >> those things, which I, too, dislike. (It's especially hateful on my
    >> dialup. <g>)


    >> http://www.crystalbernard.com/Cphotos/


    > Arrrghhhh! Not only frames and an unstoppable background song (and a
    > pretty dreadful one at that!), but it also resizes my browser!
    > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnghhhh! ;-)


    Didn't know they'd done that (didn't resize here).

    Firefox: http://www.blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/no_resize.gif

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
    Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 21, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jerry J
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Jerry J
    Jul 18, 2003
  2. jacksgoogle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,735
    jacksgoogle
    May 11, 2005
  3. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    450
    tom_usenet
    Sep 9, 2003
  4. Alexander Stippler

    why do I need ::sin, not std::sin?

    Alexander Stippler, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    832
    Pete Becker
    Jun 5, 2004
  5. Flynn

    Gallery Viewer viewer script

    Flynn, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    226
    John Flynn
    Feb 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page