Image Gallery Options?

[dh003i]

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...

I find that to be very disrespectful to people who have security concerns. "dumb enough" to switch off javascript? You act like it is an essential component of the Internet. It is a luxury. Of course the whole Internet is a luxury, but the most important part is content: documents and photographs.

[Doug Dolde]

No offense PenGun but if I had a website that looked like yours, I'd not be giving anyone advice.

[dh003i]

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.

Haha...well, yea, that's definitely one solution. But then how would you have pretty galleries?

My concern is with only HTML is static pages, having to re-load the entire page just to get a new image; whereas with JS, you're just loading the new images.

[dh003i]

No offense PenGun but if I had a website that looked like yours, I'd not be giving anyone advice.

I actually kind of like the simplicity of the gallery, although he uses tables to lay it out. Which is, well, kind of bad, since tables weren't meant to layout web-pages, but to display data.

Tables aren't necessary anymore with advanced CSS and support in all major browsers.

I also don't like that there isn't a "menu bar" at the top of the site, which imo, should be standard (or on the left).

PS: Here's a HTML & CSS only image-gallery that avoids the kludge of using tables for presenting a web-page. This one isn't very well refined, as it just takes you to another page with only the image, but that could easily be changed by the page referenced.

[PenGun]

No offense PenGun but if I had a website that looked like yours, I'd not be giving anyone advice.

I don't really care as you may have gathered, I used to write stuff similar to what you run. Never did like it much. I'd maybe run my css separate instead of both separate and included but hey whatever floats yer boat. That html has been through a few generations and the cruft accumulates.

My site is just old cloned pages against a css. There is maybe 45 min work there ... max.

Go in the back and if you have Firefox 3.5 you can laugh at my pitiful HTML5 video and audio foolery. See if this works I really don't have the bandwith hi ho: http://207.194.69.159:90/files/video_test.html

[PenGun]

I actually kind of like the simplicity of the gallery, although he uses tables to lay it out. Which is, well, kind of bad, since tables weren't meant to layout web-pages, but to display data.

Tables aren't necessary anymore with advanced CSS and support in all major browsers.

I also don't like that there isn't a "menu bar" at the top of the site, which imo, should be standard (or on the left).

PS: Here's a HTML & CSS only image-gallery that avoids the kludge of using tables for presenting a web-page. This one isn't very well refined, as it just takes you to another page with only the image, but that could easily be changed by the page referenced.

I am in no way a purist. After spending way too much time making html work across a plethora of browsers and varying compliance failures I really don't care.

I have some kosher all css new style stuff somewhere with w3c validation for everything but hey i lose interest easily.

I'm pleased you don't like it. User hostile is my way.

[D. Bryant]

I am in no way a purist. After spending way too much time making html work across a plethora of browsers and varying compliance failures I really don't care.

I have some kosher all css new style stuff somewhere with w3c validation for everything but hey i lose interest easily.

I'm pleased you don't like it. User hostile is my way.

So what is the Left4Dead link all about? Clicking on it takes me to a directory listing, which I assume is part of the directory structure of your site. Has your site been hacked?

Don Bryant

[dh003i]

I am in no way a purist. After spending way too much time making html work across a plethora of browsers and varying compliance failures I really don't care.

I have some kosher all css new style stuff somewhere with w3c validation for everything but hey i lose interest easily.

I'm pleased you don't like it. User hostile is my way.

I didn't say I didn't like it; in fact, I said I like the simple layout. Although Tables are less than ideal for layout, for the reason I said. But of course it isn't fair to put the blame on you. The blame really lies with crappy worthless browsers designed by Microsoft (anything before IE7, and IE7 to some extent), because for some reason, MS decided that standards compliance wasn't important.

Fortunately, now there is IE8, the first good Internet Browser that MS has ever made. But it still isn't the dominant version of IE; I think IE7 is still dominant, and there's just as much IE6 out there as IE8. The unfortunate reality is that 90+% of people think that little blue "e" on their desktop IS the Internet.

So yea, web-developers are faced with a bad choice. Either: (1) code to the lowest common denominator -- the simplest code; (2) Use tables for formatting; (3) Use PHP to detect which browser is used and redirect based on that (4) Taking a principled stand and coding simple HTML + CSS, which works on standards-compliant browsers.

#4 is fine for people with simple websites who aren't trying to make money, and who want to contribute to pushing for more standards-compliance.

#1 is the easiest; you chose #2. #3 is probably ideal, although many people use kludgy messes instead of #3.

[PenGun]

I didn't say I didn't like it; in fact, I said I like the simple layout. Although Tables are less than ideal for layout, for the reason I said. But of course it isn't fair to put the blame on you. The blame really lies with crappy worthless browsers designed by Microsoft (anything before IE7, and IE7 to some extent), because for some reason, MS decided that standards compliance wasn't important.

Fortunately, now there is IE8, the first good Internet Browser that MS has ever made. But it still isn't the dominant version of IE; I think IE7 is still dominant, and there's just as much IE6 out there as IE8. The unfortunate reality is that 90+% of people think that little blue "e" on their desktop IS the Internet.

So yea, web-developers are faced with a bad choice. Either: (1) code to the lowest common denominator -- the simplest code; (2) Use tables for formatting; (3) Use PHP to detect which browser is used and redirect based on that (4) Taking a principled stand and coding simple HTML + CSS, which works on standards-compliant browsers.

#4 is fine for people with simple websites who aren't trying to make money, and who want to contribute to pushing for more standards-compliance.

#1 is the easiest; you chose #2. #3 is probably ideal, although many people use kludgy messes instead of #3.

Heh ... the only thing fun I did with php detecting was to insult people based on their browser choice. Damn I was, may still be, very juvenile. <threat>I have backups</threat>

[PenGun]

So what is the Left4Dead link all about? Clicking on it takes me to a directory listing, which I assume is part of the directory structure of your site. Has your site been hacked?

Don Bryant

No indexing is on. It's my machine with the L4D stuff. Notice the use of port 90 to perhaps spoof uniserve's filters I think that works. If the vid plays I win if not ... Help yourself to whatever you want. Accounts are available