Um, hi there. :) I'm new here and have been browsing the forums here for a few days while waiting to see if Applications will be re-opened anytime soon. I have to say I really like the community, everyone seems quite helpful here. :D
So uh, I tend to babble so I'll try to get to the point. I've been trying to find an image viewing program for my art site that I'm working on and so far have had no luck. I've done a lot of searches on Google and what not and even perused topics here but either I'm not looking hard enough or something. Anyways, I figured that maybe someone here could point me in the right direction. I'm hopeless at webcoding, though I'm hopefully getting better (maybe). I'd love to find the program or something similar to what this lovely artist uses: http://jdillon.net/ (click one of the images and you'll see what I mean).
Could anyone here help me out by chance? <3
I think you're not looking for an image viewing program (that would be something you browse pictures on your own computer with... e.g. Microsoft Image Viewer) What you want is a web image gallery script(s.) One popular one is simply called "Gallery" and is used by several xepher.net members. http://gallery.menalto.com/ It let's you directly upload images, and automatically creates thumbnails for them, as well as let's people comment and other things. Other people tend to write their own pages, such as the page you linked. It's just a standard table setup to use lightbox (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/) to overlay the full image when you click. You'd need to have a decent grasp of web coding to use the latter option though... at least basic knowledge of CSS.
As to your unasked question... applications should be opening again real soon. I'm waiting on the DNS issue to be fixed, and I last got an ETA of sometime today for that... so hopefully with the start of the business day tomorrow that'll be resolved. I'll likely open up applications later this week if that's the case.
Oh, alright. Thank you very much for the clarification on that. I really wasn't sure what it would be called. I'll be sure to look into both the links you provided, though I'll probably go with the first one. I have very little knowledge of CSS, so Gallery seems safer for me. And I'm glad to hear that applications will open again soon!
Thanks again for the help. :)
Cool! I'll look into this myself :D
Another new one just came to my attention... Willsan say it's pretty nifty, and I'm about to try it out myself. http://phpgraphy.sourceforge.net/
Ah, much thanks for the lightbox link! I came across a few galleries using it and wondered how the owners did it. I'll have to look into this more once this semester's over, but I wonder if it takes any longer to load than a simple html page.
I agree with pigeon-wing, thanks muchly for the lightbox link. Now if I could only get it to work right... XD I'm so javascript-challenged.
Of course if that doesn't work, phpgraphy doesn't look too shabby either.
Lytebox (http://www.dolem.com/lytebox/) seems pretty nifty, too! :) I like that it can display more than just pictures and link from an iframe. And no worries, Ticky, it's ridiculously easy to install! :3
Well, hopefully that will work better. But then, I've always had problems with stupid things involving code in the past...I'm either incredibly dense and keep missing little tiny mistakes that later seem obvious, or the internet is just out to get me.
Also, quick apology to paper-snow for stealing your topic. Can't wait to see your application when it opens up again! (word of warning, though; I'm known to be tough on new applicants ;))
Quote from: Xepher on November 26, 2007, 01:48:14 AM
I think you're not looking for an image viewing program (that would be something you browse pictures on your own computer with... e.g. Microsoft Image Viewer) What you want is a web image gallery script(s.) One popular one is simply called "Gallery" and is used by several xepher.net members. http://gallery.menalto.com/ It let's you directly upload images, and automatically creates thumbnails for them, as well as let's people comment and other things. Other people tend to write their own pages, such as the page you linked. It's just a standard table setup to use lightbox (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/) to overlay the full image when you click. You'd need to have a decent grasp of web coding to use the latter option though... at least basic knowledge of CSS.
I'm trying to use "Gallery", and I am running the installation, but when I get to the Database section, I run into issues. this is the screen:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/fesworks/UPLOAD-71.jpg
this is all being placed into directory: http://fesworks.xepher.net/pictures/gallery2/
I'm certain my password is right. It what I used to log into https://xepher.net/phpMyAdmin/
If I change the top setting (asking for what version it is) I get:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/fesworks/UPLOAD-72.jpg
(other selections are non MySQL)
I'm going to guess that if you can't take one quick look at this and figure out what I'm doing wrong, then I'm guessing the answer is that "Gallery" doesn't work with Arclight as is. Then I'll just try another gallery program mentioned here.
Same problem someone else had recently... the database name is gonna be the same as your username (each user has their own database.) Try that, but if that doesn't work, try changing your password under user services, then change it back. There was a bug in one of my scripts for a while that wasn't properly setting MySQL passwords. Forcing it to change should fix it if that's the case.
cool, that worked! Thanks!
Quote from: pigeon-wing on December 01, 2007, 02:45:42 AM
Lytebox (http://www.dolem.com/lytebox/) seems pretty nifty, too! :) I like that it can display more than just pictures and link from an iframe. And no worries, Ticky, it's ridiculously easy to install! :3
You know, I recently installed lytebox on one of my sites, and it's been reported to me that it opens images incredibly slowly. It didn't do that to me before, but now it does. I have it set to the fastest opening speed, too, so that really bugs me. Why is it so slow?!
I let regular ol' lightbox stay on my other site and it's pretty much fine loading-wise.
Make sure that you're not only using the jQuery version of lytebox, but that the version you're using of jQuery and lytebox isn't an encoded js file.
The problem is, when you use encoded JS files granted they are much smaller in size for downloading by the browser initially, but then the browser has to decode the javascript (using javascript) every single time it runs. We recently ran into this issue on our primary system, was easily solved by just using the full non-compressed version.
Oh...
I didn't get it at first, but you're saying basically to put the javascript in the js file directly on the webpage instead?
I don't think that was it... there's a way you can save bandwidth/space with "encoded" javascript files. It basically makes them small, but not really human readable. Complex ones require more CPU juice from the browser too. http://scriptasylum.com/tutorials/encdec/encode-decode.html
Encoding them saves bandwidth, but makes the browser slower.
Hmm... in short I am mildly confused, lol. But only mildly.
Ok, guess I'll summarize:
Don't use compressed or encoded JS files. :P
Longer clarification:
I'm referring to actual *.js files, not what's directly in a web page. Xepher is right, it conserves bandwidth... but at the cost of performance. At least that's been our recent discovery with jQuery and other larger javascript frameworks or API's. Thanks to the wonderful world of broadband making things dead cheap in the bandwidth category, there's not much need to optimize things as much as there used to be anyhow. What I'm referring to is more along the lines of javascript files that are compressed and need to initialize/decompress/etc... each and every time you load a new page.
The difference we saw was literally noticeable visually. As in we could immediately tell the speed differences.
See, rather than just downloading a slightly larger file, caching it, and then just using it on page loads, it was downloading a smaller, compressed file, caching that, and then each and every page load it'd need to decompress it first, then run it. Though it's more noticeable when you're pulling things via an Ajax API that runs after the page is finished loading.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c146/senshuu/stuff/frownies/psyduck.gif)
I like code guys who can dumb things down for people like me. :P (I'll never know more than I need to know to integrate Flash and actionscript with aspx files or whatever it was my associate said he'd teach me)
And I fix it by? 5 words or less, please. <3
(Would it be by pasting all that's in the .js file into that "encoded" part of Xepher's link and hitting that <-- button? ...And then copying it into a new .js file?)
Thanks~
Hmm, I'm not really sure how to dumb it down much more than I have. Lets see...
Here:
Minified jQuery (http://code.google.com/p/jqueryjs/downloads/detail?name=jquery-1.2.6.min.js) vs. Normal Uncompressed jQuery (http://code.google.com/p/jqueryjs/downloads/detail?name=jquery-1.2.5.js)
The "minified" version is a lot smaller (54.4 kb), same code and all, but encoded and compressed. It's a smaller download initially, but more work for the browser in the long run because it has to decompress and evaluate it every time it runs.
Then you have the normal version, which is larger (97.7 kb), which is "slightly" larger (though a 40kb difference isn't shit with broadband now days) and less work for the browser since it doesn't have to decompress it and run it through an eval statement each time a page loads with that script.
There's not really a lot more I can simplify it. ;D
But how do I fix my lytebox .js filedsafjkg
("You don't Sen, you go back to using Lightbox")
Hmm... I looked at the lytebox file and it looks nothing like that minisized file there. At all~!
Fun fact: I take solace in how quickly both lightbox and lytebox run on my teacher/freelance employer's superpowerful G5 and macintosh laptop. :D And that my friend, for whom these programs are the slowest, is running a nearly 9-year-old computer.