Subject:
|
Re: Can anyone give me some web site design advice?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:40:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
CMASI@CMASI.CHEM.TULANE.EDUihatespam
|
Viewed:
|
771 times
|
| |
|
|
It would be really nice if browsers could scale images down to fit a the
screens resolution; afterall, many picture viewing utilities do that
automatically. Please do not make the pictures too small. I just want them to
fill MY screen. To heck with the people stuck at 640x480 (sarcasm). I set the
external display to 1024x768 (256 colors yuck) and still you images didn't fit.
I would say that means most peaple cannot get the full impact of the picture.
IMHO scrolling takes more away from the image than a slight reduction in
resolution. Mind you I a chemistry professor, not a graphic designer.
As for downloading speed, from home I connect with a 56.6 modem, so typical
speeds are about 4.4 kB/sec. A 15 sec download, 70?80 kB, is good, a 30 second
download, 140?160 kB, is bearable. I just checked some of the pictures on your
page, and the 130 kB images come through quickly enough. The thing that makes
me tune out the fastest is when a page is loaded with a bunch of 80 or 160 kB
pictures and I have to wait for ever just to see something. Thumbnails are far
better. Technically, it takes longer to load a page of thumbnails and then go
from image to image, but it doesn't feel like it takes as long because I am
doing something not just waiting for a monster page to load.
By the way, when I saw the overview picture of your town it had a border
around it, so I thought, "COOL, image map." My pointer did not turn into a hand
so I quickly realized it wasn't one. I have no idea how to do an image map, but
that would be the coolest way to let people poke around your town!
I'll keep flipping through your cities, I must say that I am enjoying the
overviews.
Thanks,
Chris
Brad Hamilton wrote:
> I had actually been thinking that myself.
>
> Actually, I run my screen at 1200x1000 but my typical web window ends up
> being about 1024x700.
>
> I have thought about how the large pictures are a little "too" big. I would
> prefer to post smaller ones and have some "optional' links to big ones.
> They default scan of a 4x6 ends up being the size you see. I need to scale
> it down a bit. Perhaps this would make them clearer as well.
>
> Another annoying problem with models as big as mine is that any sort of
> overall shot blurs all the details. If you use close-in shots though you
> miss the "busy" feel. Perhaps a lot of small pictures (like you recommend)
> with a few large ones would be better.
>
> I plan to do another LEGO city 2 photo shoot in a few weeks (with a better
> camera). I'll try scanning a different mix of sizes as well.
>
> P.S. I have a high bandwidth connection so it's hard for me to see how slow
> it comes in over a modem. Are you running a slower link? If so, is it
> excessively slow?
>
> Christopher Masi <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message
> news:38C43917.A251628A@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu...
> > Just started looking at your site, and I like what I have seen so far. I • take
> > it you built your site at 1024x whatever resolution? You are not the only • one
> > who posts big beautiful pictures, but it does make it difficult for those • of us
> > at 800x600 (actually I am at 832x624) to see the whole image. I think • there are
> > still alot of people who use 800x600. To get around this if I like a site
> > enough I download the pictures and open them with a utility that scales • the
> > pictures to fit in my screen.
> >
> > Just a thought,
> > Chris
> >
> > Brad Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > (I orignally posted part of this on Lugnet.general, but was directed • here)
> > >
> > > Although I'm a programmer by trade, I actually blew off the whole web • site
> > > thing until I really got the urge to share my LEGO creations.
> > >
> > > With a little learning, I've managed to put together my site
> > > (http://members.home.net/bhamilto1/).
> > >
> > > However, I still feel like I have a lot to learn.
> > >
> > > - Do people actually read text and descriptions, or do you go right for • the
> > > pictures? I tend to be a picture person myself, but do get a lot of
> > > enjoyment when I occasionally read other peoples descriptions.
> > > - Do people like to see the pictures organized by subject matter or just • a
> > > raw image directory?
> > > - Do guest books make any sense? I put one in a few weeks ago and about • 150
> > > people have visited. Only one person left anything in the guest book.
> > >
> > > Does anyone have opinions/advice on these issues. Any comments or
> > > suggestions on the layout of my site?
> > >
> > > thanks
> >
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Can anyone give me some web site design advice?
|
| (...) fit. Browsers can fit images to the size of the window: <img src="myimage.gif" width=100%> This scales the image to fit the width of the browser window. I personally prefer to use thumbnails and when clicking on it the full (unscaled) picture (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Can anyone give me some web site design advice?
|
| Thanks for all the advice Chris. I revamped my site with smaller pictures. Its MUCH better. Seriously though, why not come out of the dark ages and upgrade that 256 color video card? Being a software developer, I just HATE it when we have to make (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Can anyone give me some web site design advice?
|
| I had actually been thinking that myself. Actually, I run my screen at 1200x1000 but my typical web window ends up being about 1024x700. I have thought about how the large pictures are a little "too" big. I would prefer to post smaller ones and have (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
