Image Gallery Options?

[percepts]

Thanks for the tip, but I'd rather have something that I have more control over (i.e., I want the look of the cover-flow gallery).

Any suggestions on where to start learning?

There are so many sites on the web for html, javascript, php and Mysql.

One handy one for reference is: http://www.w3schools.com/

But that won't tell you how to go about designing all the backend functionality you will need. You'll have to get some books for that and I have no idea what is current. There is so much that you don't know about that you have never even considered. If you are completely new to programming you will struggle. I'm not suggesting you aren't capable, I'm telling you it is a lot more work than you think to do what you are suggesting and make it work well if its your first effort.

Look up open source "content management systems" which may make life simpler. You can use those to handle image uploads and page writing. Then all you need to do is to write the front end to look like you want. You can look at and edit their code to see how they do things. Some are good and some are bad and some are horrendously complicated because they try to cover so many options.
Also lookup SWFupload.
Also lookup FCKEditor which is free but has an option for purchasing an additional image upload addon which is worth getting if you use FCKEditor.

That should keep you busy for a while...

In the mean time consider all the sales you will be losing whilst trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Marko]

I guess I'm not sure what you can do with Flash that can't be done with Javascript; see the MooFlow javascript/ajax stuff I linked to.

Flash is certainly one way to do it. JavaScript/AJAX may be another.

If you prefer MooWhatever, I see no reason why you shouldn't go with it. What I think you should have done was to specify your preference in your initial question. Had you stated that you didn't want Flash, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

But before you get too excited about that Moo thing, try it say in FireFox with JavaScript disabled. It degrades so nicely that there is literally nothing, not even a blob. "Leave nothing behind" or something along those lines...

I'm curious why you think that would be a plus? Digital rights management? You can always put your name and website in the photo.

Or just people bypassing the rest of your site? Well, if they're coming to it from Google Image Search, they're going to either see our image that way, or not see your website at all. And Google Image does display it in the context of the site.

Again, you are elevating your own preference into the only correct way to do things.

I am curious as to why do you think I - or my client - would want people to find me through Google Image Search? Did it ever occur to you that I may not want to actively market my images but still need/want to present them under some other context? There are a million reasons why someone would want to have a website and at least a million ways to go about it. Who's to say which is right and which is wrong, if any?

Btw, I'm going to be writing this myself. I can't stand the over-complex code that website-design software makes. The trickiest thing will be implementing a feature for me to easily add new photos to the gallery without hard-coding them in.

I have two words for you: Good Luck!

Just FYI, SlideShowPro in its simplest form manages images through plain XML libraries. Adding to or taking away from or moving photos around the gallery is as simple as placing images into a directory and writing/deleting/shifting a couple of lines in a plain text file. Flash is actually just a front-end there, it could easily be controlled through AJAX and styled through CSS. Your choice, I'm just saying.

[dh003i]

There are so many sites on the web for html, javascript, php and Mysql.

One handy one for reference is: http://www.w3schools.com/

But that won't tell you how to go about designing all the backend functionality you will need. You'll have to get some books for that and I have no idea what is current. There is so much that you don't know about that you have never even considered. If you are completely new to programming you will struggle. I'm not suggesting you aren't capable, I'm telling you it is a lot more work than you think to do what you are suggesting and make it work well if its your first effort.

Look up open source "content management systems" which may make life simpler. You can use those to handle image uploads and page writing. Then all you need to do is to write the front end to look like you want. You can look at and edit their code to see how they do things. Some are good and some are bad and some are horrendously complicated because they try to cover so many options.
Also lookup SWFupload.
Also lookup FCKEditor which is free but has an option for purchasing an additional image upload addon which is worth getting if you use FCKEditor.

That should keep you busy for a while...

In the mean time consider all the sales you will be losing whilst trying to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks for he helpful response with references. Yea, I have no desire to reinvent he wheel designing the backend. I have found a CMS called Drupal, which supports e-commerce, and will look at the uploader and editor you suggested looking into.

My main desire is to: (a) Use a custom-gallery of my choosing; (b) Avoid the awful kludgy HTML that many WYSIWYG editors produce. For example, I remember the worthless junk MS Office would produce, with fonts specified, everything micro-managed, and text being fixed point-size such that you couldn't change the font size. Although from what I've seen of OpenOffice and Kompozer, they seem to do better.

[dh003i]

Flash is certainly one way to do it. JavaScript/AJAX may be another.

If you prefer MooWhatever, I see no reason why you shouldn't go with it. What I think you should have done was to specify your preference in your initial question. Had you stated that you didn't want Flash, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

But before you get too excited about that Moo thing, try it say in FireFox with JavaScript disabled. It degrades so nicely that there is literally nothing, not even a blob. "Leave nothing behind" or something along those lines...

Haha, thanks. I assumed it would do that since the website didn't say anything about "degrading gracefully". But the point is that Javascript can degrade gracefully if done right, while Flash can't. For an example of a Javascript gallery degrading gracefully, see Galleria. Click on the picture of the gallery to see, and then disable Javascript; although it does it as an bullet-point list, which I don't like, although that's better than seeing nothing.

I suppose the best thing to do would be to have two galleries hard-coded, one Javascript and one HTML; and have the HTML one displayed if Javascript is disabled, so you can have a gallery optimized to look as good as possible with plain HTML.

Again, you are elevating your own preference into the only correct way to do things.

I am curious as to why do you think I - or my client - would want people to find me through Google Image Search? Did it ever occur to you that I may not want to actively market my images but still need/want to present them under some other context? There are a million reasons why someone would want to have a website and at least a million ways to go about it. Who's to say which is right and which is wrong, if any?

Well, sure, if that's your preference, that's your preference. I suppose there are reasons for not wanting your website well-indexed by Google, perhaps privacy one of them (although that would be a bad defense).

I have two words for you: Good Luck!

Just FYI, SlideShowPro in its simplest form manages images through plain XML libraries. Adding to or taking away from or moving photos around the gallery is as simple as placing images into a directory and writing/deleting/shifting a couple of lines in a plain text file. Flash is actually just a front-end there, it could easily be controlled through AJAX and styled through CSS. Your choice, I'm just saying.

Thanks.

[SamReeves]

My current favorite is Simple Viewer. It's flash based, it's freeware, it plugs into Photoshop, and there is limited customization. But then that's why it's free. If you want full customization then you'll have to give the developers a few bucks. Captioning is easily done by typing between the caption tags in the XML file. Simple Viewer can disable right clicks to prevent people from downloading images gallery if you wish so.

[PenGun]

I dunno plain old html works fine. It's simple and really, all you need. I scribble a bit more when I need it.

The moonflow stuff is nice, he does give it away. It's all client side you should be fine on any reasonable server.

Oh yeah ... flash is evil.

[dh003i]

I dunno plain old html works fine. It's simple and really, all you need. I scribble a bit more when I need it.

The moonflow stuff is nice, he does give it away. It's all client side you should be fine on any reasonable server.

Oh yeah ... flash is evil.

LOL. ;-) My thoughts exactly. (but the italics markup I just used is evil too).

Another issue that occured to me when thinking about this is, "Do static header menu-bar areas and side-bars destroy website user interface?"

Consider these fixed-in-place navigation pages:
Pollution ~ the facts
This is Stu ~ Arts

At first I was kinda jazzed about this kind of thing; navigation is always available within a website. But even in the first example (which is better than the 2nd due to the scroll-bar position), it's a little bit disorienting, breaking the user-model. We look at web-pages as essentially documents that we scroll down. That style makes the web-page like a "portal" within which there is content.

[PenGun]

LOL. ;-) My thoughts exactly. (but the italics markup I just used is evil too).

Another issue that occured to me when thinking about this is, "Do static header menu-bar areas and side-bars destroy website user interface?"

Consider these fixed-in-place navigation pages:
Pollution ~ the facts
This is Stu ~ Arts

At first I was kinda jazzed about this kind of thing; navigation is always available within a website. But even in the first example (which is better than the 2nd due to the scroll-bar position), it's a little bit disorienting, breaking the user-model. We look at web-pages as essentially documents that we scroll down. That style makes the web-page like a "portal" within which there is content.

It's always a tossup. I just make em' keep clicking but I don't care much if they figure it out.

A minimal menu can be tastily implemented with a site map link at the bottom. I dunno.

I just clone more pages against the same .css as I need em'. You can herd them into streams.

[percepts]

If someone is dumb enough to switch off javascript then they probably switched off cookies too, in which case they are probably so paranoid about web security they aren't going to buy your pictures anyway. Why waste time worrying about pseudo smart ideas on graceful degrading of your website when the only people it serves are the clowns who won't buy anyway...

[PenGun]

Just feed em' html. Then you don't need to worry about the client.

Always the client is the enemy. You have no idea what it can do. Server side baby.

All this Web 2.0 crap is just for the children. Oooh shiny, look it flashed. Wow ... it rotates.