| |
> Very nice. Looks like a very impressive layout. Lots of great details.
Like my shark? =)
There's plenty more details which didn't make it onto the site, so I hope I
can get more images up!
> However you might want to consider rearranging some of the graphics along
> the top of your gallery pages so that the images fit onto an 800x600 (that's
> the current design guideline resolution...) browser window that isn't full
> screen but allows for the button bar at bottom, without needing to scroll
> each time.
I find a mousewheel quite useful in such situations! I've been to some
galleries where the prev/next options are on the bottom after high-res
images. Talk about scrolling!
> The images themselves are 640x480, easily viewable at that resolution but
> the height of the main control area, title area and next/prev/index area
> below it mean that you have to scroll each window down to see the image, but
> by just a hundred or two pixels or so. That's just enough scrolling to be
> quite annoying. (it's worse than if you had to scroll the whole page, >actually)
I personally think that people who use 800x600 surrender themselves to a lot
of scrolling, anyway =(. My gallery concepts were borrowed from PNLTC and
Brickshelf, and I'm also trying to keep that title bar intact on every page.
(They seem to suffer from low-res issues too, but I'm not complaining!) I
might try to put the prev/next buttons and the gallery title in that, if I
get the chance, to save room.
> Since what people tend to want to do is flick through these, when the user
> has to scroll down, you've either broken their flow, or ensured that they're
> going to not bother looking at the bottom, neither of which is good.
> Presumably you want people to marvel at the whole image and do so in such a
> way that they're also impressed by your web design skills (since you've put
> your name at the bottom)...
My name is at the bottom so the web comments aren't mistakenly directed at
another member who isn't familiar with what I've done! =)
> Good web design takes smaller resolution screens into account, and uses that
> thinking to help the user work efficiently. Remember, not everyone has the
> resolution you do on your development box.
1280x1024? I almost can't stand 1024x768 these days...
> Hope that helps. Again, absolutely stunning pictures, and I've spotlighted
> your post, SCLTC club members can be quite proud of this layout I'm sure.
Thanks! We sure are proud of our first multi-dimensional layout. (As if my
8-foot tall building isn't a breach of the 3rd dimension!)
www.scltc.org/pages/galleries/shows/02.05.04fullertonlayout.htm?10
I've begun to use all sorts of interesting measures to map these out
before-hand, from isometric renders to multi-layered Track Designer files!
- Thomas
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Pictures of SCLTC's Latest Show
|
| (...) A lot of people use laptops, where 1024x768 is most common, and that still required scrolling. Most of the time, I didn't bother since I could see enough of the image. Older folks also usually run at lower resolutions so they can read text (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.trains.org.scltc, lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
20 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
|
|
|
|
