How is this for Web Development

Hificorp has a similar thing, and it is a bit better, you can pull open the pages with your pointer
 
I would have liked a pdf, to download, better.
 
Not really web dev as such IMHO.

There are plenty of print products replicated using similar 'mag' flash apps.
 
The is a much more sophisticated Silverlight plugin template that lets you do pretty much the same, except you can "page" it with your pointer. The download footprint for a similar Silverlight app smaller and consumes less resources...

(to all the MS-haters out there - Silverlight is platform independent, so no need for Windows or IE...)
 
FarligOpptreden said:
(to all the MS-haters out there - Silverlight is platform independent, so no need for Windows or IE...)
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Regardless though, I tend to avoid proprietary development platforms like the plague.
 
Well, that's not to say that I *like* Silverlight or Flash (or anything similar, mind you). It's just the experience I've had with it so far. I can't stand animation-heavy websites. I like it clean, simple and fast.
 
Too slow. Far too often business picks Flash because it's, well, flashy. It doesn't help that it takes so bloody long to load though. They lost me when it was 2% loaded.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
I like it clean, simple and fast.
Click to expand...

If you want your web pages to load fast, try to shrink the images down when adding them to your page - The Images you use in your sites are flippen HUGE!
Do NOT use the Original 1200xwatever original images!! Also, browsers do not "Resize" images quite as good as say, photoshop.

...Although, As a graphics designer that uses Google Images Every Day, I love it when Web Designers do this, as I can use the Hi-res Images!! :D
...but from me to you....shrink them down rather. (you can still make it that when a person clicks on it, a Hi-Res version is shown though...)

A tiny image "perceived" roughly the size of 320x240 should NEVER load longer than 10 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
If you want your web pages to load fast, try to shrink the images down when adding them to your page - The Images you use in your sites are flippen HUGE!
Do NOT use the Original 1200xwatever original images!! Also, browsers do not "Resize" images quite as good as say, photoshop.

...Although, As a graphics designer that uses Google Images Every Day, I love it when Web Designers do this, as I can use the Hi-res Images!! :D
...but from me to you....shrink them down rather. (you can still make it that when a person clicks on it, a Hi-Res version is shown though...)

A tiny image "perceived" roughly the size of 320x240 should NEVER load longer than 10 seconds.
Click to expand...


WHA?! I'm pretty lost here... I NEVER use large images in ANY of my websites. In some way I use the source image for creating thumbnails, but I do it all in C# - never, never, NEVER will I just add an image to a page with <img src="blah blah blah" style="height: 150px; width: 150px" /> and try to resize my 1200x1200 image that way. That's just plain dumb... :rolleyes:

EDIT: This is the way I do it:

<img src="photo_resize.aspx?file=./Photos/Gallery/07.jpg&height=175&width=175&crop=True" class="photos" />

This way, I call a page I created (with no markup - just to facilitate a server-side call) that opens the original image (still on server-side, so no impact on client), creates a "thumbnail" of the specified size and crops it to fit into the specified size, if necessary. I push the thumbnail back into the BitStream to the client, which receives it as a normal (downscaled) image and displays it in the image tag. So, even though I can store my HUGE original images on the server, I just render the desired size back to the client. That way, maintenance is reduced and the amount of files I have to upload to the server is also greatly reduced.
 
Last edited:
FarligOpptreden said:
So, even though I can store my HUGE original images on the server, I just render the desired size back to the client. That way, maintenance is reduced and the amount of files I have to upload to the server is also greatly reduced.
Click to expand...
You can do it that way, but I prefer to downsize on the desktop, and push the small image up. Less storage, less bandwidth used (to upload), less processing on the server (I assume you cache your rendered images?), and depending on what application you use, better rendering.
 
I run a church website, so you know as these things go, quality is not of the upmost importance ;) But being able to dump photos via ftp and forget about them is a huge plus.
Server worries about the rest.
 
Raithlin said:
You can do it that way, but I prefer to downsize on the desktop, and push the small image up. Less storage, less bandwidth used (to upload), less processing on the server (I assume you cache your rendered images?), and depending on what application you use, better rendering.
Click to expand...

I do cache the images, yes. I was just using an example of uploading HUGE images. In reality, if I reuse an image 3 times in different sizes on the website (i.e. thumbnail, preview, bigger preview), I just put the largest size I'm going to use on the server and generate thumbnails for the rest. I think the biggest sized images I've uploaded onto a server are in the region of 640x480 (or similar) or in the region of 60-110kb each. I hate having very large images on a website.

carruden said:
I run a church website, so you know as these things go, quality is not of the upmost importance ;) But being able to dump photos via ftp and forget about them is a huge plus.
Server worries about the rest.
Click to expand...
Wow, I've never felt like that before. Every website I do I regard as part of my portfolio, so I take utmost care to craft the most fitting, high-quality website I am capable of at the time. :p
 
Last edited:
carudden said:
I run a church website, so you know as these things go, quality is not of the upmost importance
Click to expand...
HERESY!! :p
Seriously, quality is always of importance. You or the client may not think so, but it makes an impression on the visitor/customer visiting the site - when I see a below-average site, it reflects badly on the designer IMO.

FarligOpptreden said:
I do cache the images, yes. I was just using an example of uploading HUGE images. In reality, if I reuse an image 3 times in different sizes on the website (i.e. thumbnail, preview, bigger preview), I just put the largest size I'm going to use on the server and generate thumbnails for the rest. I think the biggest sized images I've uploaded onto a server are in the region of 640x480 (or similar) or in the region of 60-110kb each. I hate having very large images on a website.
Click to expand...
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X