🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn7v5kud.sqo.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:46:02 -0700, mail@wafflelight.com wrote:
> >Hi folks -
> >
> >I run a concert photography web site
> >(http://www.wafflelight.com/popshots/) and I'd like to work out a better
> >thumbnails solution, as the current one, where implemented, sucks.  I end
> >up with the photo selected shown as part of a frameset, which is fine, but
> >it's just the picture, not centered, on that ugly grey background.  I
> >don't want to use 1800 individual html files so I figure a simple little
> >cgi might be the best way to go to put in a black background and copyright
> >notice - just pass the photo URL over, spit back a minimalist html file to
> >put in that frame, with the photo URL tucked inside.  No mess, no fuss, no
> >databases or whatnot.
> 
> or you could have 100 ones with 18 in each. 
> whats wrong with that?
> most people like MULTIPLE thumbnails per page, so this is probably the
> best way to go for you.

I wasn't clear - I run the thumbnails, multiple of them, in one frame.  I
want to have the full size photo appear in the other frame.  Instead of
just the bare .jpg showing up in that frame I want to have it centered,
with a black background and my copyright notice, with the file created by
a little script, I think.  I want to make sure there's not a glaring
problem with that idea that would be either really ineffecient or do
something runaway that would take down a machine.  It seems fine to me,
but then I'm not that far past using a prebuilt formmail.cgi.

You're right on the thumbnails - I run sets of about 10 to 20 at a time.

Thanks,

Otto

-- 
| Otto Kitsinger | <mail@wafflelight.com> | Los Angeles
| LA movies - concert photography - stuff - www.wafflelight.com

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:46:02 -0700, mail@wafflelight.com wrote:
>Hi folks -
>
>I run a concert photography web site
>(http://www.wafflelight.com/popshots/) and I'd like to work out a better
>thumbnails solution, as the current one, where implemented, sucks.  I end
>up with the photo selected shown as part of a frameset, which is fine, but
>it's just the picture, not centered, on that ugly grey background.  I
>don't want to use 1800 individual html files so I figure a simple little
>cgi might be the best way to go to put in a black background and copyright
>notice - just pass the photo URL over, spit back a minimalist html file to
>put in that frame, with the photo URL tucked inside.  No mess, no fuss, no
>databases or whatnot.

or you could have 100 ones with 18 in each. 
whats wrong with that?
most people like MULTIPLE thumbnails per page, so this is probably the
best way to go for you.


-- 
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
       http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:32:02 -0700, mail@wafflelight.com wrote:
>In article <slrn7v5kud.sqo.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
>phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:
>...
>> or you could have 100 ones with 18 in each. 
>> whats wrong with that?
>> most people like MULTIPLE thumbnails per page, so this is probably the
>> best way to go for you.
>
>I wasn't clear - I run the thumbnails, multiple of them, in one frame.  I
>want to have the full size photo appear in the other frame.  Instead of
>just the bare .jpg showing up in that frame I want to have it centered,
>with a black background and my copyright notice, with the file created by
>a little script, I think.

oh.

well, what's wrong with having mulitple frames, then?

big one for thumbnails on left, and a HOLDER frame on the right, with
two or three subframes with invisible borders.
one holds the fullsize picture, one holds the copyright notice.

-- 
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
       http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude

In article <mail-2909991646020001@adsl-206-170-239-97.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net>
	mail@wafflelight.com (Otto Kitsinger) writes:

>Would there be javascript solutions that would work better?  In your
>experience do most folks have javascript capabilities and have it turned
>on?  Heavily javascripts sites make me nuts but this might be small enough
>to be okay.

I acknowledge that this is a religious issue, but I think you should
avoid a javascript solution unless there is a compelling need for
it.

My first indication that a page is using javascript (or java) is
usually error messages about default backgrounds and missing methods.
That's assuming that the browser doesn't crash when I try the "back"
button.

--
|Drew Lawson           |  So many newsgroups  |
|drew@furrfu.com       |  So little time      |
|http://www.furrfu.com |                      |

In article <37f391ff$0$203@nntp1.ba.best.com>, drew@furrfu.com (Drew
Lawson) wrote:

> In article <mail-2909991646020001@adsl-206-170-239-97.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net>
>         mail@wafflelight.com (Otto Kitsinger) writes:
> 
> >Would there be javascript solutions that would work better?  In your
> >experience do most folks have javascript capabilities and have it turned
> >on?  Heavily javascripts sites make me nuts but this might be small enough
> >to be okay.
> 
> I acknowledge that this is a religious issue, but I think you should
> avoid a javascript solution unless there is a compelling need for
> it.

I agree too; but my js reservatations are pretty strong and thus I don't
keep up on the news.  For all I know they've come up with three character
solutions for all common web needs, and it never crashes anymore.  I sort
of doubt that, but why not ask.

> My first indication that a page is using javascript (or java) is
> usually error messages about default backgrounds and missing methods.
> That's assuming that the browser doesn't crash when I try the "back"
> button.

Tell me about it.  I tend to leave js on only because a bunch of stuff I
like at cnn.com requires it.  Otherwise, I'm frequently glad to be using
my beta iCab that doesn't support jscript yet.  I will admit to using
onMouseOver for status lines, but I think that's all the javascript code
I've got on my 800 or so pages.

Otto

-- 
| Otto Kitsinger | <mail@wafflelight.com> | Los Angeles
| LA movies - concert photography - stuff - www.wafflelight.com

In article <slrn7v5oji.93l.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:

...
> big one for thumbnails on left, and a HOLDER frame on the right, with
> two or three subframes with invisible borders.
> one holds the fullsize picture, one holds the copyright notice.

I tried something along these lines, except it was still ugly - the photos
aren't all one shape, and there's no way to make sure a frame is their
size.  I'm thinking now a simple cgi that just puts down a body tag, black
background, center tag, the image URL (passed in with the script request),
one or two lines of generic text (copyright notice) may be the way to go. 
No databases, nothing at administrate or update, seems clean to me.  I'm
just wondering if there are any known potential loopholes with this,
anything that can cause a runaway process.  I feel bad enough when my own
computer goes down; I don't ever ever ever want to risk a shared
environment.

Multiple frames with invisible borders are a great friend of mine, but in
this case I really really really want to get stuff centered and on a
background matching the other windows.  Otherwise that border isn't so
invisible.

Otto

-- 
| Otto Kitsinger | <mail@wafflelight.com> | Los Angeles
| LA movies - concert photography - stuff - www.wafflelight.com

In article <mail-3009991323200001@adsl-206-170-239-97.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net>,
Otto Kitsinger <mail@wafflelight.com> wrote:
>
>I agree too; but my js reservatations are pretty strong and thus I don't
>keep up on the news.  For all I know they've come up with three character
>solutions for all common web needs, and it never crashes anymore.  I sort
>of doubt that, but why not ask.
>
>> My first indication that a page is using javascript (or java) is
>> usually error messages about default backgrounds and missing methods.
>> That's assuming that the browser doesn't crash when I try the "back"
>> button.
>
>Tell me about it.  I tend to leave js on only because a bunch of stuff I
>like at cnn.com requires it.  Otherwise, I'm frequently glad to be using
>my beta iCab that doesn't support jscript yet.  I will admit to using
>onMouseOver for status lines, but I think that's all the javascript code
>I've got on my 800 or so pages.
>

My current pet peeve is that people are using javascript links way
too much, which means that I can't right click and 'open in new window'
depressingly often.
--
Thomas Andrews         thomaso@best.com         http://www.best.com/~thomaso/

On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:20:17 -0700, mail@wafflelight.com wrote:
>In article <slrn7v5oji.93l.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
>phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:
>
>...
>> big one for thumbnails on left, and a HOLDER frame on the right, with
>> two or three subframes with invisible borders.
>> one holds the fullsize picture, one holds the copyright notice.
>
>I tried something along these lines, except it was still ugly - the photos
>aren't all one shape, and there's no way to make sure a frame is their
>size.

why do you need to have a frame the same size as the picture?



-- 
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
       http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude

In article <slrn7v7ne6.nho.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:20:17 -0700, mail@wafflelight.com wrote:
> >In article <slrn7v5oji.93l.phil+s3@shell3.ba.best.com>,
> >phil+s3@bolthole.no-bots.com wrote:
> >
> >...
> >> big one for thumbnails on left, and a HOLDER frame on the right, with
> >> two or three subframes with invisible borders.
> >> one holds the fullsize picture, one holds the copyright notice.
> >
> >I tried something along these lines, except it was still ugly - the photos
> >aren't all one shape, and there's no way to make sure a frame is their
> >size.
> 
> why do you need to have a frame the same size as the picture?

If I don't, then the default color (netscape grey) fills the rest of the
frame, which doesn't go well with concert photography at all.  It likes a
black background, and the whole rest of my site is that way.  I want that
background to match.

Otto

-- 
| Otto Kitsinger | <mail@wafflelight.com> | Los Angeles
| LA movies - concert photography - stuff - www.wafflelight.com

In article <37f3c92b$0$209@nntp1.ba.best.com>, thomaso@best.com (Thomas
Andrews) wrote:

> My current pet peeve is that people are using javascript links way
> too much, which means that I can't right click and 'open in new window'
> depressingly often.

Yes!  I hate that.  At least most of the sites I like use it for pop-up
windows (say, the polls at CNN) but I still need to retrain myself to not
open in a new window; let it do it for me.  It's okay, the machine can do
the work... it can it can it can...

Otto

-- 
| Otto Kitsinger | <mail@wafflelight.com> | Los Angeles
| LA movies - concert photography - stuff - www.wafflelight.com