PDA

View Full Version : Image Gallery Options?



dh003i
8-Jul-2009, 23:07
Hi all,

I'm planning on putting my best images up on an personal website registered to me.

So, I'm writing the forum to ask for suggestions regarding gallery formats. Here are several professional galleries, or gallery demos, that I very much like:


Darlene Almeda : Photoscapes.com (http://photoscapes.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio42/imageFolio.cgi?direct=Color/Flora&img=)

Great photos. Re the gallery, it is a nice layout; I like how it is integrated with ordering prints, if you just click on a thumbnail. I also like that you can direct-link to the larger photo's page. However, one thing that I don't like is how there is no photo link. You cannot link directly to the photo. This was probably a conscious decision, but it has the effect of de-google-izing your photo. Consider the photo, "Awakening" (http://photoscapes.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio42/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Color/Flora&image=10015.jpg&img=&tt=). Try Googling it, even restricting the Google to http://photoscapes.com (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=Awakening+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fphotoscapes.com&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=). Nothing shows up. In fact, Googling for images on photoscapes.com (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fphotoscapes.com&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=) produces only 2 results. But there are probably 100 photos on the site!

I of course understand the desire to protect your work from external linking without permission. But the photographer name is watermarked on he lower right hand portion. So at least if it was linked to, there'd be a copyright notice. So maybe it makes it more difficult to link to, but still not impossible; a determined person could just copy the image and host it themselves, even crop out the watermark. (I wonder if it might be a good idea, for legal purposes, to create several "invisible" diagonal watermarks with your name and copyright for images on a site; i.e., with a 1/255 difference in darkness. Invisible to the naked eye (most of them), but provable.


Jeremy Cowart Photography (http://www.jeremycowart.com/)

I like the way the gallery is, how you can slide from one image to the next, and how images are large. But it's in Flash. Flash is awful, imo. And nothing on the webpage resizes to my attempts to enlarge text. I'm not an old man, but I like to have my text large. Also, the website is completely unusable if I shrink my browser down to 3 x 3 inches. I do however like the option to pull up a thumnail list.

Navigating the images is a little slow compared to the galleries above and below, though.


MooFlow Gallery (http://www.outcut.de/MooFlow/example-json.html)

This is just a demo gallery. But imo, it's a "wow". Look how fast you can scroll through the images with cover-flow style; using either arrow keys, scroll-wheel, or mouse clicks. Double-clicking on the image brings up a larger version. Also checkout he "fullsize viewer" (http://www.outcut.de/MooFlow/example-fullsize-viewer.html) (click on "Another Gallery" to get something more interesting than Apple logos). You can click a button to maximize the gallery to your display, and then click on the little magnifying glass buttons to get larger images.

It also links to direct images; although google search of the site for images produces no result (http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.outcut.de&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi), for some reason.

I really like the presentation of images on that gallery, if only for the speed with which you can navigate through it. Although I prefer the larger image presentation of Cowarts site. I presume that can be changed by a few simple settings. More complicated is if this image gallery javascript can be integrated with ordering prints, as is Darlene's gallery. Not just technically, but also from a "does it make sense to the user" pov.

Thoughts?

Doug Dolde
9-Jul-2009, 09:42
If you can afford it, I'd recommend Foliolink.com. I have been using it for about 6 months and it's a great service. Many templates, both Flash and HTML, to choose from and very easy maintenance from a browser.

They have several price levels depending on how many images you wish to show. Do the trial and see how you like it. If you need more capacity you can upgrade later.

Marko
9-Jul-2009, 09:53
Take a look at Todd Dominey's Slide Show Pro (http://slideshowpro.net/).

Very configurable, you can easily customize it for whatever look and style you're going for.

dh003i
9-Jul-2009, 11:29
Take a look at Todd Dominey's Slide Show Pro (http://slideshowpro.net/).

Very configurable, you can easily customize it for whatever look and style you're going for.

It looks nice...but navigation isn't as fast as the sites I linked to (except for the Cowart page). And it uses Flash...Did I mention I hate flash? I use Linux as my OS. I had to install some proprietary plugin to look at flash sites. At least that one scales, which is good; but it is still not standards-compliant (or rather, a proprietary standard), and doesn't interact nicely with Google.

Many people won't be able to look at anything Flash, for whatever reason. They use Linux as their OS and don't know how to setup the proprietary Flash software, or don't want to. They have a small mobile device without Flash support; etc. And it doesn't degrade nicely if it can't be used.

With Javascript around, I don't understand why people use non-standards compliant stuff like Flash.

Doug Dolde
9-Jul-2009, 11:32
I'm wondering how you do other pages besides galleries with SlideShowPro. It looks to be only oriented to producing galleries. Perhaps you need to use other software to create the website itself.

One thing about Foliolink, though it's more expensive, it's all integrated. And it generates an iPhone version on it's own.

Marko
9-Jul-2009, 12:08
I'm wondering how you do other pages besides galleries with SlideShowPro. It looks to be only oriented to producing galleries. Perhaps you need to use other software to create the website itself.

It IS just a very specific gallery module. It is not meant to be an all-in-one, it does one thing only and it does it well, within its parameters.

The gallery module lives on a vanilla (X)HTML page, as does all the other regular content that does not need to be animated nor "dynamically presented" in any other way. That makes for lean, standards-compliant and SEO-friendly pages.


One thing about Foliolink, though it's more expensive, it's all integrated. And it generates an iPhone version on it's own.

Yes, it is more expensive and it is "integrated". ;)

With a properly developed site, you don't need separate versions. And even if I did, I would never trust a program to generate it for me. Especially not one of the "integrated" variety.

I prefer BBEdit, been using it for the last 10 years or so. But that's just me, I do that for a living - your choice may depend on your expertise and your needs. There is a range of applications designed for everybody, from complete beginners to professionals.

Marko
9-Jul-2009, 12:42
It looks nice...but navigation isn't as fast as the sites I linked to (except for the Cowart page). And it uses Flash...Did I mention I hate flash?

You didn't. If you did, I wouldn't have mentioned anything... :D


I use Linux as my OS. I had to install some proprietary plugin to look at flash sites. At least that one scales, which is good; but it is still not standards-compliant (or rather, a proprietary standard), and doesn't interact nicely with Google.

[...]

With Javascript around, I don't understand why people use non-standards compliant stuff like Flash.

You mean ECMAScript? There are people who have it disabled, either by personal choice or by corporate dictum.

What exactly do you mean by "it is not standards compliant"? I suppose you're talking about W3C standards. Flash player is an external application, a media player just like Quick Time or any other. W3C standards apply to markup, CSS and ECMAScript. They only govern how an external app is integrated, but do not define the app itself. I am not too fond of Flash either, I try to avoid it whenever possible and practicable, but there are times when it is not and when it's the best solution.

If by "interaction with Google" you mean it is not search engine-friendly, it all depends on the surrounding markup, but no, individual photographs are NOT searchable and it may be a plus in some instances.


Many people won't be able to look at anything Flash, for whatever reason. They use Linux as their OS and don't know how to setup the proprietary Flash software, or don't want to. They have a small mobile device without Flash support; etc. And it doesn't degrade nicely if it can't be used.

Let's not confuse personal preference with facts, shall we?

Your choice of OS is a matter of your preference. If you choose to use an OS which was originally written for the backroom and not for the desktop, and then deliberately configure it to prevent Flash from working because you do not want to use Flash, that is the choice you are free to make, but you shouldn't blame Flash for that. If somebody bound your hands and knees together and then pushed you down the stairs, would your failure to degrade gracefully be your fault? :D

To be fair, I might probably be using Linux myself if only it could be properly color-managed and if it could run Photoshop, and if... But then it wouldn't be Linux, it would be OSX and that's exactly what I run...

dh003i
9-Jul-2009, 14:24
You didn't. If you did, I wouldn't have mentioned anything... :D

You mean ECMAScript? There are people who have it disabled, either by personal choice or by corporate dictum.

What exactly do you mean by "it is not standards compliant"? I suppose you're talking about W3C standards. Flash player is an external application, a media player just like Quick Time or any other. W3C standards apply to markup, CSS and ECMAScript. They only govern how an external app is integrated, but do not define the app itself. I am not too fond of Flash either, I try to avoid it whenever possible and practicable, but there are times when it is not and when it's the best solution.

Fair point about my terminology. I would say, though, that Flash is, unlike Javascript, a proprietary standard. Although Adobe as tried to address those concerns.

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.


If by "interaction with Google" you mean it is not search engine-friendly, it all depends on the surrounding markup, but no, individual photographs are NOT searchable and it may be a plus in some instances.

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.


Let's not confuse personal preference with facts, shall we?

Your choice of OS is a matter of your preference. If you choose to use an OS which was originally written for the backroom and not for the desktop, and then deliberately configure it to prevent Flash from working because you do not want to use Flash, that is the choice you are free to make, but you shouldn't blame Flash for that. If somebody bound your hands and knees together and then pushed you down the stairs, would your failure to degrade gracefully be your fault? :D

To be fair, I might probably be using Linux myself if only it could be properly color-managed and if it could run Photoshop, and if... But then it wouldn't be Linux, it would be OSX and that's exactly what I run...

Actually, Linux can use Flash. I have no problem using Flash on Linux. But it is a proprietary plugin. It doesn't come with any distribution by default, while javascript support may. So that may be an issue for some users.

Then there are also users out there with small mobile devices. Or handicapped users, which Flash also presents problems for.

And if users have Javascript turned off, your gallery can degrade nicely, and still display something. Flash is just a binary blob. No Flash capability, you just see a gaping hole in the website. See this article on Flash vs. Javascript (http://www.webreference.com/programming/javascript/java_flash/). That said, one needs to plan for degradation when coding Javascript (http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/JavaScript/Making-JavaScript-Applications-Degrade-Gracefully/).

Although it isn't the fault of Flash per se, it seems that a lot of Flash sites are just awful. Four-Thirds.org is horrendous. Whenever I see a website, like Jeremy Cowart's, where the text does not scale and is fixed point -- or worse yet, images for links -- I think, "insensitive clod". Either that, or the person let too many buzz words get to their head.

Maybe I'll just end up going with a more simple HTML gallery.

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.

percepts
9-Jul-2009, 14:41
If you have never written your website with your own content management system then I can guarantee that it will take you a lot longer than you think. Unless you already know about server side scripting and possibly SQL then you are biting off more than you think.

I'd just go with a package or hosting option and spend your time on SEO for it.

have a look at: http://www.clikpic.com/

you get the option of normal html plus flash slideshows if you want but you don't have to use them. Its cheap and has online sales(no charges exept normal paypal) and can be search engine optimised. Also images will seen by google images.
And think you can add text pages. Check out the free 7 day trial to see if its what you want.

dh003i
9-Jul-2009, 15:07
If you have never written your website with your own content management system then I can guarantee that it will take you a lot longer than you think. Unless you already know about server side scripting and possibly SQL then you are biting off more than you think.

I'd just go with a package or hosting option and spend your time on SEO for it.

have a look at: http://www.clikpic.com/

you get the option of normal html plus flash slideshows if you want but you don't have to use them. Its cheap and has online sales(no charges exept normal paypal) and can be search engine optimised. Also images will seen by google images.
And think you can add text pages. Check out the free 7 day trial to see if its what you want.

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?

percepts
9-Jul-2009, 15:33
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
9-Jul-2009, 15:50
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... :D


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
9-Jul-2009, 18:11
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
9-Jul-2009, 18:28
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... :D

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 (http://devkick.com/lab/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
9-Jul-2009, 21:34
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
9-Jul-2009, 21:58
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
9-Jul-2009, 22:51
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 (http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/body4.html)
This is Stu ~ Arts (http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/body2.html)

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
9-Jul-2009, 23:14
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 (http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/body4.html)
This is Stu ~ Arts (http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/body2.html)

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
10-Jul-2009, 09:43
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
10-Jul-2009, 13:01
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. ;)

dh003i
11-Jul-2009, 09:38
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
11-Jul-2009, 10:31
No offense PenGun but if I had a website that looked like yours, I'd not be giving anyone advice.

dh003i
11-Jul-2009, 10:53
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
11-Jul-2009, 12:40
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 (http://www.w3schools.com/CSS/tryit.asp?filename=trycss_image_gallery). 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
11-Jul-2009, 13:36
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
11-Jul-2009, 13:42
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 (http://www.w3schools.com/CSS/tryit.asp?filename=trycss_image_gallery). 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
11-Jul-2009, 14:15
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
11-Jul-2009, 14:23
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
11-Jul-2009, 14:53
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
11-Jul-2009, 14:58
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

Marko
11-Jul-2009, 17:38
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.

That's all 1999 you're talking about. We're in 2009 now.

#5 - Professional web developers use professional web development techniques to create commercial-grade websites that work as they are supposed to in all contemporary browsers without browser-sniffing and other such kludges. ;)

But that is the topic far beyond the scope of this site, there are plenty of good fora for those who really want/feel qualified to get into these sorts of discussions.

dh003i
11-Jul-2009, 17:56
That's all 1999 you're talking about. We're in 2009 now.

#5 - Professional web developers use professional web development techniques to create commercial-grade websites that work as they are supposed to in all contemporary browsers without browser-sniffing and other such kludges..

Um, there's really no way around it. Either you use very very simple HTML so it displays fine in all browsers...or if you use CSS + HTML, you have to build code into the page to display fine on IE5, 6, 7, and 8 along with FF and other standards-compliant browsers (the easy one). Or you use PHP to detect that, and serve up appropriate HTML for the browser.

There's no way around it. And in my experience, "professional web design software" produces awful HTML. Btw, I don't know what world you're living in, but in my world, most "professional websites" are pretty bad. I can't count the number of sites where when you do CTRL +, some elements aren't in sync with one-another, or where parts of the page cover up other parts. MSNBC is an awful offender, wtih it's menus that disappear so easily.

Marko
11-Jul-2009, 19:57
Um, there's really no way around it. Either you use very very simple HTML so it displays fine in all browsers...or if you use CSS + HTML, you have to build code into the page to display fine on IE5, 6, 7, and 8 along with FF and other standards-compliant browsers (the easy one). Or you use PHP to detect that, and serve up appropriate HTML for the browser.

There's no way around it. And in my experience, "professional web design software" produces awful HTML.

Yes, there is a way around it. No, you don't have to build code into the page to target individual browsers. No, ie5 is not supported any more and neither is Netscape. And no, browser-sniffing is simply not done any more, at least not in serious work.

Yes, you use XHTML for markup and CSS for UI (presentation, positioning and basic behavior). Unless the markup is (relatively) simple and unless it is strictly semantic, you have to start kludging, there's no question about it.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you rely on software to produce your code, be it HTML, JavaScript, AJAX or whatever, you should not be talking about professional development.


Btw, I don't know what world you're living in, but in my world, most "professional websites" are pretty bad. I can't count the number of sites where when you do CTRL +, some elements aren't in sync with one-another, or where parts of the page cover up other parts. MSNBC is an awful offender, wtih it's menus that disappear so easily.

I live in the world of professional web development. Have been living in it for the past dozen years or so. I am not talking about Uncle Bob's Sausage Factory website, ;) I am talking about enterprise-level websites.

Here's a few examples, courtesy of Jeffrey Zeldman:

MSN, WordPress, RoadRunner, IRS (sic!) among others validate fully. Wikipedia, Apple, LinkedIn and many others fail because of one or two errors. Many large websites fail validation because of post-dev, usually content-entry errors. That's smaller margin of error than most of us achieve typing.

And then there is the majority of large, corporate websites where they are still playing catchup and trying to bring their entire operation up to standards. That is a HUGE task, it takes teams and years of work to undo what a bunch of hacks did in the world wild web years with tables dot-gifs without disrupting operation and remaining transparent to customers. This is the world I live in lately.

Questions of "best" browsers, OSs and/or plugins are pretty irrelevant, not to mention all the anguish over small gallery plugins. ;)

Doug Dolde
11-Jul-2009, 20:10
Philip Greenspun has an interesting article recommending using blog software (ie Wordpress or something like it) to create your website:

http://philip.greenspun.com/business/weblog-as-website

dh003i
11-Jul-2009, 20:56
Yes, there is a way around it. No, you don't have to build code into the page to target individual browsers. No, ie5 is not supported any more and neither is Netscape. And no, browser-sniffing is simply not done any more, at least not in serious work.

Yes, you use XHTML for markup and CSS for UI (presentation, positioning and basic behavior). Unless the markup is (relatively) simple and unless it is strictly semantic, you have to start kludging, there's no question about it.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you rely on software to produce your code, be it HTML, JavaScript, AJAX or whatever, you should not be talking about professional development.

I was actually saying that software produces bad code, not that I'd use it. That's why I don't use software. The first time I saw MS Word produce an awful website was the last time I considered having a program produce HTML. (although maybe there are better ones).

Btw, IE5 is still used by a few people with old computers. And IE6 -- which also is a CSS-mess -- is used by 11-62% of website users, depending on the survey. Even IE7 (7.4-45%) isn't perfect with CSS. Hence why, what I was talking about with needing to use various hacks to make sure something also works on versions of IE lower than 8.

So it seems like we're in violent agreement, in general: as layouts get more complex, kludge becomes necessary to make them look good on any browser. I'm not quite sure why it's so much better to build all of that into one page, rather than determining the browser and serving up an appropriate page without code for several other browsers. There are benefits each way. Browser sniffing means less stuff to download, which may be relevant for the 10% of Internet users still on dialup (http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/7/some-people-just-love-dial-up). Of that 10%, probably 6.6% aren't going to upgrade anytime soon (33% can't afford more, and that isn't changing soon; 19% say nothing would persuade them to upgrade; 14% use it because it's the only option). IE5 might not matter to you, but it does to many people, especially those using older machines. One source has 35% of users with IE5 (http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm), although that's probably biased (the 0.05% to 1.9% are probably more like it).


I live in the world of professional web development. Have been living in it for the past dozen years or so. I am not talking about Uncle Bob's Sausage Factory website, ;) I am talking about enterprise-level websites.

Here's a few examples, courtesy of Jeffrey Zeldman:

MSN, WordPress, RoadRunner, IRS (sic!) among others validate fully. Wikipedia, Apple, LinkedIn and many others fail because of one or two errors. Many large websites fail validation because of post-dev, usually content-entry errors. That's smaller margin of error than most of us achieve typing.

Half of those websites (especially MSN, RR) are simply awful, whether or not they validate. Complicated, confusing messes. The whole point of standards compliance is to make pages that can be rendered in many environments, and to be more usable for (say) disabled people. Or at least that's the benefit: usability. MSN and RR may validate fully, but their usability is so awful that it doesn't matter. Apple, however, is excellent, despite using pictures for its menu-bar.

PenGun
11-Jul-2009, 21:31
Philip Greenspun has an interesting article recommending using blog software (ie Wordpress or something like it) to create your website:

http://philip.greenspun.com/business/weblog-as-website

The good CMS stuff rocks. It has brought a useful option to many enterprises that just want to bring thier stuff to the web.

PenGun
12-Jul-2009, 12:59
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.

True but a straight up page done well is pretty tiny, especially if we are using css. It's all that JavaScript that makes the actual page huge.

I ran Cocoon and later Tomcat for a while. Served up Java can be very fast and have cuteness too.

There are some wonderful photographers on the board with inspirational work posted on sites linked here. It makes no difference what the site is like. If you have generic crap beautifully presented it's still just generic crap done well. The photographs haul the freight.

For me at least.

dh003i
12-Jul-2009, 15:41
True but a straight up page done well is pretty tiny, especially if we are using css. It's all that JavaScript that makes the actual page huge.

I ran Cocoon and later Tomcat for a while. Served up Java can be very fast and have cuteness too.

There are some wonderful photographers on the board with inspirational work posted on sites linked here. It makes no difference what the site is like. If you have generic crap beautifully presented it's still just generic crap done well. The photographs haul the freight.

For me at least.

Yea, of course the content drives the boat. But what I meant by fast is how fast you can scroll through that MooFlow gallery, I mean, just by scrolling your mouse wheel; from the beginning to the end in seconds. As opposed to "click, click, click, click, click, click".

Now, if there's a CSS way to let you do that, that would be awesome.

Although the Javascript for that gallery isn't too bad, imo.

PenGun
12-Jul-2009, 19:08
It's also true that modern browsers have much faster JavaScript engines than even a couple of years ago.

The moonflow stuff is kinda nice, boost his code, he wants it out there.

dh003i
12-Jul-2009, 20:43
It's also true that modern browsers have much faster JavaScript engines than even a couple of years ago.

The moonflow stuff is kinda nice, boost his code, he wants it out there.

How do I "boost" his code?

But yea, I agree...very nice. The mod I have to do is to make it so that clicking on the small image takes you to a "buy-this-print" (or digital file) web-page.

Btw, this is the funniest thing ever... from possibly the worst web-page ever; I imagine that the #1 worst website here is what the world looks like on LSD (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/2009-worst-contenders-jan-march.html). And I thought MS' website was bad (MS fails contrast tests horribly).

Just be careful if you actually go to the #1 worst website of 2009. It could crash your browser. It's that bad. Slowed down my browser, and I have a quad-core Phenom 9500 + 8GB RAM.

PenGun
12-Jul-2009, 22:56
How do I "boost" his code?

But yea, I agree...very nice. The mod I have to do is to make it so that clicking on the small image takes you to a "buy-this-print" (or digital file) web-page.

Btw, this is the funniest thing ever... from possibly the worst web-page ever; I imagine that the #1 worst website here is what the world looks like on LSD (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/2009-worst-contenders-jan-march.html). And I thought MS' website was bad (MS fails contrast tests horribly).

Just be careful if you actually go to the #1 worst website of 2009. It could crash your browser. It's that bad. Slowed down my browser, and I have a quad-core Phenom 9500 + 8GB RAM.

No LSD is nothing like that ... trust me

Firefox 3.5 is almost quick with it. Heh well not quick it's huge. I can scroll almost right away and end takes me to the bottom pretty good.

Opty 165 cranked to 2288G, 2G RAM, Debian Lenny 64bit.

He has a download page for the .js and the .css. He even throws in assorted gifs for controls etc. I'd make my own ;). There is a documentation section. Go for it.

Boy when I did pages. I shudder to remember the terrible code I used to boost, hack up and reglue into more pleasing and useful forms. This is laid out for you.

Doug Dolde
14-Jul-2009, 21:22
Marko,

Thanks for the heads up on Slideshowpro. I completely redid my site with it, ditched Foliolink.

http://douglasdolde.com/

Marko
14-Jul-2009, 22:47
Doug, you did a great job!

As a side comment, I especially like your duotones.