Request for critique of on-line slideshow

A

Alex Chernavsky

I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows. The advantage of Thumbs is that images are automatically
resized on the fly, depending on the size of the visitor's browser window.
It seems to work on my computer (Win 98, IE 6). I'd like to know whether
anyone has problems with it. Here's the link:

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/katrina/index.html

Only the first 20 images are captioned -- I haven't finished the rest.

Thank you for considering this request.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

__/ [Alex Chernavsky] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 06:26 \__
I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows. The advantage of Thumbs is that images are automatically
resized on the fly, depending on the size of the visitor's browser window.
It seems to work on my computer (Win 98, IE 6). I'd like to know whether
anyone has problems with it. Here's the link:

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/katrina/index.html

Only the first 20 images are captioned -- I haven't finished the rest.

Thank you for considering this request.

It works gracefully under Firefox, Mozilla and Konqueror atop Linux. I would
also like to point out the slideshow features of the PHP-based Gallery (no
on-the-fly resizing though) and S5 for slideshows containing text that is
resized to fit the browser window.

Roy
 
H

hywel.jenkins

Alex said:
I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows. The advantage of Thumbs is that images are automatically
resized on the fly, depending on the size of the visitor's browser window.
It seems to work on my computer (Win 98, IE 6). I'd like to know whether
anyone has problems with it. Here's the link:

They're not resized on the fly - just scaled in the HTML. That means
that someon viewing it in a small browser window still has to download
the full 270k image. I don't see that as an advantage. The image is
also poorly rendered because of the way browsers scale graphics.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Alex said:
I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows...

Throw it way and make your own, or get something different. (Photoshop
has the same thing build in, and can do it for you)
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Alex Chernavsky quothed:
I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows. The advantage of Thumbs is that images are automatically
resized on the fly, depending on the size of the visitor's browser window.
It seems to work on my computer (Win 98, IE 6). I'd like to know whether
anyone has problems with it. Here's the link:

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/katrina/index.html

Only the first 20 images are captioned -- I haven't finished the rest.

Thank you for considering this request.

I liked the page, and it worked here in XP, IE/Moz/Opera, but as Hywel
said, you still have to d/l a biiiiig image to see a small one. Have
you ever looked at the Zoom function in Opera? -Absolutely fantastic
resizing!
 
D

dorayme

From: "Alex Chernavsky said:
I'm experimenting with a package called "Thumbs" that creates on-line
slideshows. The advantage of Thumbs is that images are automatically
resized on the fly, depending on the size of the visitor's browser window.
It seems to work on my computer (Win 98, IE 6). I'd like to know whether
anyone has problems with it. Here's the link:

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/katrina/index.html


Yes, I had a little problem but it would be one that many if not
all would have. But first let me say I enjoyed looking at your
pics, poor things those animals, nice clear pics. The problem is
size! Even the smallest enlargement is too big to fit on the
screen with a normal browser and see the navigation arrows etc.

So the software is failing a bit... Better really to size the
pics with your human intelligence and the specs in the html....
but if there are parameters you can change in your software,
maybe you could experiment further?

There is no need to go so big on the first enlargement
considering you are allowing further ones. Some of us have
screens running at about 72 px per inch, yours do not
comfortably fit on a 1024x870 reasonable sized screen. Plus
there
is the loading time on dial up, so compounding the problem. I am
not saying don't be generous, just maybe trim down a bit. The
bigger sizes are usually either for quite atypical screens or
for printing...

Must have been an interesting excursion taking those pics?

dorayme

(I will give details of browsers etc if you persist... Try to go
down say, 20% width and height on the first enlargement and
leave the big big to those (very few) who want it on the second
upping...)
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,731
Messages
2,569,432
Members
44,832
Latest member
GlennSmall

Latest Threads

Top