|
|
Posted by Mimic on 06/29/05 03:07
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:04:51 +0100, Mimic <dev@null.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I would like to look into this some more, but I just landed another 2
>>jobs wh00t.. but anyway...
>
>
> Does this mean you won't be participating in the lil web design
> challenge me and Starshine started? I told him he could have you as
> his design partner to try and even out the odds a little.
>
Indeed I wont be. :)
>
>
>>It will be good for resizing the bg images of sites, you could make some
>>very nice designs with it. One problem I imagine you will have though,
>>is animated gifs, so that might be worth looking into next.
>
>
> I haven't yet tried it with animated GIFs, resizing shouldn't be a
> problem, but I don't yet know if PHP supports animated GIFs...not
> that, that would be too terrible a problem, I can construct an
> animated sequence out of static GIFs using JavaScript.
>
> With this new design EVERYTHING will be resized, so what you see on a
> 1024x768 res will be EXACTLY what you see on an 800x600 res.
>
>
Yeah I was thinking you could create each frame on the fly, not sure how
that would affect the server load and what like though.
>>What you could also do, to eliminate cookies etc, is to grab the
>>dimensions, bang a forward on the index to itself with the dimensions as
>>GET variables, if the variables exist, process the image, if not (get
>>them and fwd).
>
>
> Hrmmm...I might do that, if I can mask the URL...possibly via an
> iframe.
Damn hatter put the iframes down! ;)
Anyway, never fear, Ive done it already, Ill up the final code sometime
tomorrow after work. :)
>
>>To overcome any limitations on resolution/sizing varieties, youre going
>>to need to come up with a method to resize more than just static images
>>- youve got flash,
>
>
> Oh Flash is simple, it has built in resizing that's pretty decent.
> However I don't plan on making all my sites completely in Flash any
> time soon as I believe that's an incredibly BAD thing to do...I mean
> people complain about Microsoft monopolizing the web...YEESH!
>
Far enough, I havent done much mor ethan basic flash animation, made
the base for a fps once but thats about it. I think flash is very
bloated and can course xcomptibilty issues. Im a raw xhtml, php and css
man mysel :)
>>anim gifs, java applets, video streams etc etc,
>>otherwise youre going to limit yourself to just text/image sites - but
>>it is a step in the right direction.
>
>
> GIFs I've already covered, Java Applets I'm not too worried about and
> video streams will resize using whatever base core you're running off
> of, usually WMP, which has good resizing capabilities built in.
>
> Text is actually the hard/impossible part, since font support varies
> and font display and alignment vary from browser to browser. Which is
> why I support more non-traditional means of incorporating
> text...basically using 2+ color GIFs. It doesn't significantly
> increase the overall size of the site and allows for EXACT placement
> and EXACT sizing. Plus you can also use fancier fonts that way as
> well as textures, shadows, etc, etc. The histology site is a good
> example:
> All the text on there was created using PNG files with a single color
> transparency, turned out quite nice and the total site size is only
> about a half megabyte, that's pretty bad ass right there...only
> downside is that in order to do it, it requires a rather in depth,
> expert level understanding of graphic formats and compression.
>
>
Far enough on the media. The text is actually fairly easy to do, there
are base fonts on all platforms across the board, with a few tweaks you
can setup the spacing and margins np, also if you work in em's, youll
have no trouble with resizing.
>>How do you handle resizing of different ratio's?
>
>
> I'm going to base it off a set max res of 1003x596 which is the max
> default viewing area in IE on a 1024x768 res. The site will still
> resize nice on resolutions higher than that, but any larger than 20%
> of that and it'll start to be noticeable...but it won't be jagged
> lookin.
>
> According to my stats there's not a whole lot of people on resolutions
> higher than 1024x768 and the ones that are, are still in close range
> so as not to make any noticeable difference. Anything at, or smaller
> than 1024x768 and it'll look completely flawless, even arbitrary
> widths, such as a windowed screen.
>
> Using that base res of 1003x596 all I have to do is take the image
> size, like let's say 100x20 and then do a lil math:
>
> 100 / 1003 = .0997
>
> So when the clientwidth changes it only has to take that value and
> multiply it by .0997 to get the new image width. And then the height
> can be found using the existing method which looks at the aspect ratio
> of the original image.
Indeed, i was previously thinking that the ratio of the change had to be
the same, ie, not a client window at 1000*2 :P
But alas, I have coded up my resizing, slightly different to yours, and
whilst there are problems, its appears to be working very well.
> Tres simple, non?
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
:D This is what 2600 is all about :)
--
Mimic
"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
Damn the day star and its rays of light beaming upon my box of moving
pictures.
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|