Simple website design critique please.

I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on my
ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from dynamic
drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below have the
same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm
This is simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close, and
perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without scrolling.
Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on say a
1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them as they are?
Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other methods /
scripts worth looking at.

click wrote:

Thanks for any replies

Clicking on the thumbs took too long before the full image displayed...
most folks wouldn't check more than a few pix before they got bored.

I hate to scroll images unless absolutely necessary, because I prefer to
see the full composition at a glance.

Perhaps 1024 x 768 should be your maximum design target, to fit even small
laptops.

For online viewing, speed is more important than size.

click wrote:
Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other methods /
scripts worth looking at.

The first one looks a bit better, but is it all really necessary?

What is wrong with a simple HTML page of thumbnails and links to the big
images?

You could use a simple server-side script to generate the pages
dynamically, or just do it on your PC before you upload new images.

If you resize them or not, depends on what you're trying to do.
Personally I prefer having large images as they are more useful.

I'm probably in the minority these days, but simple is better IMO.

- RL

RL wrote:
click wrote:
Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other methods /
scripts worth looking at.

The first one looks a bit better, but is it all really necessary?

What is wrong with a simple HTML page of thumbnails and links to the big
images?

You could use a simple server-side script to generate the pages
dynamically, or just do it on your PC before you upload new images.

It's a simple "free" ISP provided webspace so AFAIK server-side scripts
aren't possible.
I think it's necessary to do something, because simple links navigate
way from the thumbnail index page, so if more than a few images are
browsed, then navigating back to the index becomes a paint in the neck -
either because the user closes a window (if the large images are opened
in new windows/tabs), or the user gets lost in "back-forward" land.

If you resize them or not, depends on what you're trying to do.
Personally I prefer having large images as they are more useful.

I'm probably in the minority these days, but simple is better IMO.

I tried to keep it as simple as possible.

click wrote:
I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on
my ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from
dynamic drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below
have the same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm
This is simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close, and
perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without
scrolling. Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on
say a 1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them as
they are? Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other
methods / scripts worth looking at.

Works without JavaScript too. Impressed! I prefer the second one.

Charles Gillen wrote:
click wrote:

Thanks for any replies

Clicking on the thumbs took too long before the full image displayed...
most folks wouldn't check more than a few pix before they got bored.

I hate to scroll images unless absolutely necessary, because I prefer to
see the full composition at a glance.

Perhaps 1024 x 768 should be your maximum design target, to fit even small
laptops.

For online viewing, speed is more important than size.

Yep - throttling back to 64kbps (I just used up my broadband quota
until Sunday :-) ), then I see what you mean. On dial-up speed, it's no
good.
I'll take a look at the scripts and see if there's a way to bypass the
image being pre-loaded so that at least it starts loading instead of
looking at the stupid animated "loading" caption. But browsing images
at less than broadband speed is a lost cause IMO anyway.

Nik Coughlin wrote:
click wrote:
I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on
my ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from
dynamic drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below
have the same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm
This is simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close, and
perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without
scrolling. Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on
say a 1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them as
they are? Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other
methods / scripts worth looking at.

Works without JavaScript too. Impressed! I prefer the second one.



Dig it. Second one also has the "close" X at the top. Reduces scrolling.
There's no such thing as making it *too* easy for users.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Nik Coughlin wrote:
click wrote:
I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on
my ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from
dynamic drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below
have the same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm
This is simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close, and
perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without
scrolling. Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on
say a 1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them as
they are? Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other
methods / scripts worth looking at.

Works without JavaScript too. Impressed! I prefer the second one.


It uses Javascript - but what I can't figure is that with ie7, browsing
the page(s) on my HD, ie brings up a security warning. Browsing the
same on-line it doesn't. I think my security settings are 100% default,
so I have no idea why Microsoft would deem that html stored on a local
drive would be more of a potential threat than html on the www. No
problems with FF default settings.

click wrote:
Nik Coughlin wrote:
click wrote:
I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on
my ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from
dynamic drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below
have the same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition
effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm This is
simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close,
and perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without
scrolling. Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on
say a 1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them
as they are? Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for
other methods / scripts worth looking at.

Works without JavaScript too. Impressed! I prefer the second one.


It uses Javascript - but what I can't figure is that with ie7,
browsing the page(s) on my HD, ie brings up a security warning. Browsing
the same on-line it doesn't. I think my security settings
are 100% default, so I have no idea why Microsoft would deem that
html stored on a local drive would be more of a potential threat than
html on the www. No problems with FF default settings.

It's just an IE thing. What I mean is, if you turn JavaScript off, it still
works. Without the fancy transition, but it works.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:39:43 +1200, in message 1183696452.241021@ftpsrv1,
click wrote:

I've been playing around with simple methods to display my images on my
ISP provided free site using javascript "lightbox" scripts from dynamic
drive. I welcome comments back about this. Both links below have the
same images and layout, but different scripts.
This one is a perhaps bit a bit over the top with transition effects:
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...urch/index.htm
This is simpler, but too easy perhaps to click on images to close, and
perhaps the transition effects do add something?
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tm...rch/index2.htm
Some images are going to be taller than can be viewed without scrolling.
Should I resize them so they fit in a browser window on say a
1280x1024 screen, or should I forget about it and leave them as they are?
Thanks for any replies, including any suggestions for other methods /
scripts worth looking at.


Both are really cool.

Some comments

1. People *will* click on the thumb before the thumbs page has fully
loaded. If they do, the effects don't occur.

2. The grey semi-opaque layer only extends the width of the physical screen,
When I scroll right, I scroll past the its right-hand edge.

3. Many full-sized images are wider than the screen, and people
hate scrolling horizontally.

4. Start displaying the full picture immediately. People hate waiting.


--
Cheers,
Ralph