|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 06/30/26 11:37
gil wrote :
>
>
> At approximately 2006/01/16 08:04, Travis Newbury typed these characters:
>
>> gil wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to have the user click on a thumb in a photo gallery to
>>> view a larger image with a single line of text below it, AND a button
>>> which would close the window.
>>> Is there any way this can be done inline with <a ref...>?
>>
>>
>> Yes, call a different HTML page that displays the image and has the
>> button.
>>
>>
>>> Or is there a
>>> better option?.
>>
>>
>> Yea, you might not want to use a pop up window for this.
>>
>
> I guess that there is no elegant way to code a link on a thumbnail to
> display a pop up window with larger image and caption when activated.
Gil, read again your original post. You'll see that 9 lines out of 13
were about a close button. You got an answer on that, regarding that, etc..
Later, you explained more what you were looking to do. You failed to
give more details on the overall picture of what you wanted to do. You
put too much emphasis on that close button.
For your information, more and more browser manufacturers are
restricting more and more powers of script to play, to "toy with" the
window object. If a script shouldn't open automatically a window, then
why should it be able to close a window or bring it back on top, just
like that?
Mozilla 1.x, Firefox 1.x and Nestscape 7.x all allow users to neutralize
windowRef.close() calls :
dom.allow_scripts_to_close_windows
Also, nowhere your idea was to reuse such secondary window, to recycle
such secondary window into a customized resized window. In your own
words, the script you had in mind was to create 99 secondary window
which would have to be closed automatically if you had a 100 picture
photo album: that's abusing user system resources in many ways. Nowhere
in your post did you indicate a preference for reusing and recycling a
single secondary window for your photo album purposes/goals.
> Although no one said it couldn't be done,
I say it can be done and I say I have done so *_many many months ago_*.
Create a sub-window and dynamically DOM-insert an image
http://www.gtalbot.org/DHTMLSection/DynamicInsertionDOMImageInPopup.html
(although that demo may not be exactly what you need or want)
Opening enlarged images of different dimensions into a single new
separate window only one at a time
http://www.gtalbot.org/DHTMLSection/EnlargeThumbnail.html
the consensus is that I should
> stick to the tried and true no risk method,
For a photo album, a slideshow (like S5) is an acceptable solution as
long as you cater for accessibility guidelines.
and create a separate html
> page for each larger image, with the caption text.
You did not fully explain what exactly you were looking for to begin
with: you did not at first give the overall picture of what you were
trying to do. You initially/originally focused on that close button and
then later brought up that blur, lost of focus trick to automatically
close the window. That trick is definitely not recommendable because
it's inflexible and it's not a logical response to what the user does. A
window response should be normally adequate (or proportional if you
want), appropriate to what the user's initial behavior, original action
was. The users always associate a browser window response to his own
behavior, action: losing/switching focus has nothing to do with closing
a window.
When you work on a document in a word/text application, switching to
another application should not provoke the closing of your word/text
application. That's true to any window/windowing environment and media
application. David Massy and more and more MS-Windows/MSIE engineers
agree and understand all this.
Closing a window should be in direct response to an user action
deliberately, specifically and explicitly in that sense.
>
> Seems like a lot of wasted space to have a full screen window display a
> 4cm x 6cm large image with caption.
Well, then a slideshow is a better alternative.
Of course I could make the image
> even larger now, if I didn't have to concern myself with the dial-up
> download times of these images. (The images have been optimized to be 5
> to 15 kb each).
>
Well that's good. Image quality, reducing number of colors without
reducing image quality and using .png (better compression) is the first
thing to do with all and every images put on a site.
"PNG also compresses better than GIF in almost every case (5% to 25% in
typical cases)."
GIF or PNG
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/png-gif
> In my mostly rural area, only about 30% have high-speed connections, and
> my site is mainly for them. Download times do MATTER.
>
> Thanks for all of your help.
> Gil
More and more countries are setting standards and guidelines for
reducing the size of webpages too, you know. On January 1st 2006, New
Zealand government has made an accessibility law mandatory to comply
with; one guideline/standard is to make webpage even accessible for
connections of 14.4Kb modem and 9.6Kb modem, exactly because there too
in rural areas there are people with slow connections.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|