Current thinking (long)

[notbob]

I'd recommend using HTML 4.01 Strict.
http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

I've taken this groups recommendations and am well on my way down the
4.01 strict road. Hey, this CSS isn't anywhere near as intimidating
as I thought it would be and the whole manual coding thing is actually
kinda fun. I'm already in htmldog's advanced section and starting to
visualize a real webpage for my hosted site. Now, if I can jes get
the hang of this gimp thingie. Thanks, gang!!

nb

 

[Patrick James]

Perhaps all the folk north of the equator would like to speak up
and say how clearly they remember your website and how clearly
they immediately understood the specific changes you alluded to
and who, north of the equator, did not. And for good measure,
folk south of the equator might do same. And then, when all the
facts are in, we might assess whether it has anything to do with
the equator.

I am north of the equator and all the pictures load almost instantly.

I do like the website!

They photographs are so very excellent.

The only visual design mod I'd suggest is a better menu system.

Panel on the left, perhaps with links to all parts of the site with a
hiearchical layout?

Could be done with a simple bit of CSS and an include on each page for
the panel.

 

[mcnewsxp]

when i switch doctype to 4.01 strict from transitional xhtml my footer
include is no longer visible in dreamweaver. shows up in the browser tho.
what explains this?

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

How did *xhtml* do that?

IIRC, there was something a long time ago about some mobile devices being
able to read XHTML instead of WML.

 

[mcnewsxp]

when i switch doctype to 4.01 strict from transitional xhtml my footer
include is no longer visible in dreamweaver. shows up in the browser tho.
what explains this?

option strict for VBScript made the diff.

 

[dorayme]

Thanks d.

I'll look into the big picture thingy.
However my idea if putting all the pictures in one folder was NOT one of my
best ideas

My own practice is to have all pics in a folder called "pics",
but inside that folder to have all thumbs (for galleries) in a
"thumbs" folder, all normal enlargements in a "big" folder and
all very big (800px or more) in "biggest". The file list in all
these three sub folders are identical looking, their mothers
unable to tell them apart at a glance.

All other pics for the website loose in the "pic" folder - unless
there are special requirements like a "bg" folder for background
images if used extensively.

My maximum height/width combination of 460/840 stems from assuming some
folks still operate on 800 x 600 screens and so I can get a caption in
without scrolling down (much). Having said that, my local library uses a
setup where my 610 wide images fill their big screens.

Yes, I would say to be careful going beyond about 600px wide for
a photo intensive site. You can link to bigger as I have
described before.

I have been playing with the CSS button size so it doesn't look daft on a
desktop, but is big enough for a mobile touch screen.

Plainer little arrows (as many time illustrated to you by me in
the past) are best. Keep them in one or two prominent places, at
the top and/or bottom and together neatly.

Now to find the picture that she was banging on about being 220k+

Yes that should be hard! There were about ten or eleven pics on
the page, you can eliminate the smaller pixel ones from your
enquiries, that leaves about 4 or 5 suspects. On a Mac, in list
view, you can arrange to see in file size order, the biggest
floats to the top. So, Sherlock, borrow a Mac or do similar on a
PC.

 

[Jim S]

My own practice is to have all pics in a folder called "pics",
but inside that folder to have all thumbs (for galleries) in a
"thumbs" folder, all normal enlargements in a "big" folder and
all very big (800px or more) in "biggest". The file list in all
these three sub folders are identical looking, their mothers
unable to tell them apart at a glance.

Here we go again. When I said folders I didn't mean 'folders', I meant
pages which have lots of pictures as opposed to pages which have only one
photo. If I were to pursue that objective then I could end up with pages
with 99 pictures and even I am not really that daft.
I do all the other stuff you mention anyhoo.

All other pics for the website loose in the "pic" folder - unless
there are special requirements like a "bg" folder for background
images if used extensively.



Yes, I would say to be careful going beyond about 600px wide for
a photo intensive site. You can link to bigger as I have
described before.

Plainer little arrows (as many time illustrated to you by me in
the past) are best. Keep them in one or two prominent places, at
the top and/or bottom and together neatly.

They have to be big enough to be accessible with a fingernail on
touchscreen mobiles, even after they have been scaled down by whatever
scales pictures down for mobiles.I have to be careful as mobile phones do not have the same fonts as normal
pcs.

Yes that should be hard! There were about ten or eleven pics on
the page, you can eliminate the smaller pixel ones from your
enquiries, that leaves about 4 or 5 suspects. On a Mac, in list
view, you can arrange to see in file size order, the biggest
floats to the top. So, Sherlock, borrow a Mac or do similar on a
PC.

lol