Thanks

[Paul Furman]

Thanks for all the advice, I've done a lot to upgrade my pages though
I'm sure you can find plenty messed up it's a huge improvement from a
few weeks ago! Don't try validating yet, that's another nightmare I'm
avoiding.

Still, I've got:

Most layout now specified in the CSS file. This includes fixed
attachment background which now works in Mozilla. I only had a few CSS
prpoerties set in the head and inline before.

Min-max width that allows some degree of fluid layout with minimal use
of tables. Though Mozilla won't shrink my min-max textbox inside the
overall min-max table, it'll shrink pages without that.

Inline unordered list nav bar that wraps if need be, centered and evenly
spaced (that took 4 CSS styles to accomplish).

Gallery with javascript to jump to first link so you just hit enter to
advance (I'll add a way to turn this on optionally when I get time but I
love it!) No tabindex fiddling.

Gallery thumbnails with styles for selected-thumb (wide border) and
regular-thumb with subtle hover color cue (I couldn't get transparent
with hover only but matched background is not bad). No more ugly default
blue!

Control over excessive top & bottom spacing from default <h1> etc, added
padding where needed for extra space.

Form button style that looks like a regular link (evil me, but it looks
better).

The whole thing indexed and assembled with php instead of hand coded
pages. This includes a mail form instead of the despised mailto link.

Index:
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/index.php

Gallery:
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/index.php?SCREEN=ecard

Mail (with stealth OK button):
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/index.php?SCREEN=settings.php&PICS=6

Not bad for a part time coder in a few weeks.

 

[Steve R.]

Paul Furman wrote in message ...

Gallery thumbnails with styles for selected-thumb ....

Ouch !! ... 16K for those thumnails, such as ...
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/grasses/thumbs/04-P1011085-cnga_.jpg
Should be around 2k for that size. No wonder it took so long to download on
a dial-up line.

and 60K for this ... (it could easily be 35K or less)
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/grasses/04-P1011085-cnga_.jpg

 

[Paul Furman]

Ouch !! ... 16K for those thumnails, such as ...
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/grasses/thumbs/04-P1011085-cnga_.jpg
Should be around 2k for that size. No wonder it took so long to download on
a dial-up line.

Wow, thanks I hadn't noticed. Ah ha, It's the EXIF camera data I started
saving recently that's bloating them. I had no idea that could be 14k!
Those 16k thumbs were all saved at 50% jpeg quality. If I let Irfan
strip out that camera info stuff it works fine.

and 60K for this ... (it could easily be 35K or less)
http://hills.ccsf.edu/~pfurma02/grasses/04-P1011085-cnga_.jpg

How about 45k. I don't like to go below 50% quality, I used to set it at
60 or 70%.

 

[Steve R.]

Paul Furman wrote in message ...

Those 16k thumbs were all saved at 50% jpeg quality. If I let Irfan
strip out that camera info stuff it works fine.

Thumbnails are fine now.

How about 45k. I don't like to go below 50% quality, I used to set it at
60 or 70%.

Try some at 20, 30 and 40 and see if you can *really* see the difference on
a good quality monitor, when compared side by side, especially if you add a
little unsharp mask before saving to web.

Having nicely optimised images certainly makes browsing much more enjoyable
for dial-uppers :~)