Request for critique of on-line slideshow

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Alex Chernavsky, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. 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:

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

    Thank you for considering this request.
    Alex Chernavsky, Oct 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. __/ [Alex Chernavsky] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 06:26 \__
    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 Schestowitz, Oct 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
    hywel.jenkins, Oct 11, 2005
  4. Throw it way and make your own, or get something different. (Photoshop
    has the same thing build in, and can do it for you)
    Travis Newbury, Oct 11, 2005
  5. Alex Chernavsky

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Alex Chernavsky quothed:
    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
    Neredbojias, Oct 11, 2005
  6. Alex Chernavsky

    dorayme Guest

    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
    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?


    (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
    dorayme, Oct 12, 2005
    1. Advertisements

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 (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.