Thumbnail preview in firefox

[Ed Mullen]

They were interesting, but I think I'm really a traditionalist at heart. I
might use one on a small "fronting" page or something but probably not on a
main site page. I noticed at least 2 of those links had top-level Flash
includes, too (-which I didn't get as I don't have the plugin installed,
hooray!)

Yeah, I'm not overly enamored of flash (or Flash) on Web sites. "Just
the FAQs, Ma'am." Sigh. I guess I'm just a Joe Friday kinda guy.

Still, it's like everything else. Remember when the Web was pretty much
just text? Then everyone went nuts with special effects and GIFs etc.
And it (kinda) settled down and reason (a bit) prevailed.

Reminds of when I worked in TV production waaaay back and we got Chroma
Key and wipes and spiffy switcher transitions. Every freaking talking
head interview show had the director exercising the "new" technology and
every cut from the host to the guest became a guessing game of "... uh,
should it be a diagonal wipe or a pixelated dissolve?" SHUT UP, YOU
IDIOT! It's a freaking CUT from one face to another!!!

Sigh. Sorry, old age creeping in again. I think I'll just go get
another Makers Mark and contemplate my navel. If I do that long enough
maybe it'll just blow over. ;-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Unable to close TROUSER.ZIP! - Replace floppy and retry (Y/N)

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Ed Mullen ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 00:55 \__

__/ [ Jonathan N. Little ] on Saturday 22 April 2006 13:33 \__

It is very captivating! Might I suggest slowing down the frame rate a
bit, it might be the whizzing speed of it that bothers some. A little
subtler would captivate the eye without being to distracting because in
the end you want them reading your page not staring at the address
bar! ;-)

Judging by recent statistics, only about 40% of the visitors will have
something displayed in the address bar. Firefox ix becoming more of a
'problem' by the day. *grin*

I edited it and changed the rate from 4ms to 10ms and the animation
remained smooth to the eyes just a little less caffeine-enhanced! ;-)

As someone whose ritual includes a visit to Starbucks every morning for
a Triple Grande Latte, I, for one, applaud you! :-D Hey, I'm revved up
enough without all that spinning around thing going on. Geez. I
couldn't figure out whether to puke or go back to Starbucks. Or back to
bed. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's my problem. ;-)

Thanks, Jonathan. I'll change it.

Best wishes,

Roy

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

__/ [ Ed Mullen ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 00:55 \__

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I edited it and changed the rate from 4ms to 10ms and the animation
remained smooth to the eyes just a little less caffeine-enhanced!

Thanks, Jonathan. I'll change it.

Just thought of something else you might like to try, make the animation
loop a finite number of times, say like 30. Enough so you wowed and
amazed but will stop before you do a "Jack Nickelson - Shining" thing!

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Jonathan N. Little ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 02:28 \__

__/ [ Ed Mullen ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 00:55 \__

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I edited it and changed the rate from 4ms to 10ms and the animation
remained smooth to the eyes just a little less caffeine-enhanced!

Thanks, Jonathan. I'll change it.

Just thought of something else you might like to try, make the animation
loop a finite number of times, say like 30. Enough so you wowed and
amazed but will stop before you do a "Jack Nickelson - Shining" thing!

For some reason, the inter-frame delay is not being honoured and my software
allows infinite looping, but not a specified number of iterations. *sign* I
use a very old version of the GIMP. I'll SSH to a more modern box and see if
luck comes my way.

Best wishes,

Roy

 

[Neredbojias]

Yeah, I'm not overly enamored of flash (or Flash) on Web sites. "Just
the FAQs, Ma'am." Sigh. I guess I'm just a Joe Friday kinda guy.

Still, it's like everything else. Remember when the Web was pretty
much just text? Then everyone went nuts with special effects and GIFs
etc. And it (kinda) settled down and reason (a bit) prevailed.

I remember bbses, and, yes, graphics were a great advancement. But content
is still the main thing (-which images, of course, can be.)

Reminds of when I worked in TV production waaaay back and we got
Chroma Key and wipes and spiffy switcher transitions. Every freaking
talking head interview show had the director exercising the "new"
technology and every cut from the host to the guest became a guessing
game of "... uh, should it be a diagonal wipe or a pixelated
dissolve?" SHUT UP, YOU IDIOT! It's a freaking CUT from one face to
another!!!

Hehe, did a bit of that myself. Didn't remain in that slot long enough for
it to drive me nuts, but I think it could have after a while.

Sigh. Sorry, old age creeping in again. I think I'll just go get
another Makers Mark and contemplate my navel. If I do that long
enough maybe it'll just blow over. ;-)

"Blow over": ah, what wonderful words of repose! Think I'll go and take a
nap...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

For some reason, the inter-frame delay is not being honoured and my software
allows infinite looping, but not a specified number of iterations. *sign* I
use a very old version of the GIMP. I'll SSH to a more modern box and see if
luck comes my way.

Roy:

Email me and I will send you 2 versions. One slowed to 10ms and another
also slowed to 10ms and and limited to 30 revolutions.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Jonathan N. Little ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 04:58 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:


Roy:

Email me and I will send you 2 versions. One slowed to 10ms and another
also slowed to 10ms and and limited to 30 revolutions.

Ta muchly for that! I chose the second among the two and it looks much better
now.

Roy