Post by: jepinto on February 07, 2003, 06:29:00 AM
I'm trying to decide which is more effective, putting thumbnails on a page, linking to separate pages, or putting a link to one page with pics.
No longer being on dial up but aware of the limitations, I wonder if the one page would be too slow.
Can you compare Thumbnails to Link to picture page
Do NOT be afraid to be blunt (Hi Bill!), I want these pages to look good and be as accessible as possible.
TIA
[ 02-07-2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: jepinto ]
Post by: Bruce_F on February 07, 2003, 08:20:00 AM
I didn't spend much time at either page because of time restraints, but I did get my "first look" impression. That means a lot to you, the designer, as to how someone coming to the page for the first time takes in information.
I choose the page with thumbnails. I have no idea how it loads on a 56k connection, but it loads just fine for me on cable.
If your pictures and thumbnails are optimized to the full extent, without suffering the ill effects of compression, you should be alright with the picture heavy page.
The reason I go for the more graphic style is because if I'm cruising the site for homes to purchase, pictures will get my full attention before descriptive text will.
HTH,
Post by: giantmike on February 07, 2003, 08:32:00 AM
Post by: RobW on February 07, 2003, 08:39:00 AM
We've got about 9 inches of snow today, so the last thing I wanted to see were these pictures! Anyway, FWIW, I agree with Bruce. If you can add it, it might not be a bad idea to put a "click on picture to enlarge" label on there somewhere--but if not, I'd still go with the thumbnail option.
Listen, if the price is open to negotiation, I've got about $42.23 saved up in a jar--will that get me a tour?
Post by: kelly on February 07, 2003, 10:24:00 AM
Maybe 30 seconds for the Thumbnails.
That's tolerable for us Dial Uppers I think.
Post by: dolphin on February 07, 2003, 10:35:00 AM
Maybe I am doing something wrong...but I found the "link to pictures" faster and much easier to navigate.
BTW...I would not pay $330,000 for that...I saw NO MAC in the pic...showing the computer!..hehe..LOL!
Post by: RobW on February 07, 2003, 10:36:00 AM
Post by: jepinto on February 07, 2003, 03:42:00 PM
Rob Come on down! Tours are free, but there's another place we can spend $42.23!
Please, if any toheres have input.....
Post by: Bill on February 07, 2003, 04:22:00 PM
I'm a picture guy. Like Bruce F and GM. If you see a pic (thumbnail) right off, well that usually catches my attention more than a link.
As long as the thumbnail is small eoungh in Ks, kind of doubt if a split second or two would make a difference compared to a link.
If you have a whole page full of thumbnail pics compared to a bunch of links,which do you think would catch the viewers eye.?.
The Philly guy does bring up a point on "YO! Click the little pic to see a bigger puppy" . <gr>
Post by: daffy on February 07, 2003, 04:42:00 PM
The leading pictures on the Link to Picture page are so attractive that if I were a potential buyer, I'd be drawn to keep on opening the links to see more.
....and...gosh, seeing those sure make me realize how much I still miss living in the sub-tropics after all those years in Miami. Where we are now, in the Florida Panhandle; the flora & fauna are more Alabama than Florida.
Post by: snuffysbluff on February 08, 2003, 04:13:00 AM
Both sites are interesting and load fast for me.
I predict both would be equally successful, but as long as there aren't too may photos on the link page, I think I prefer it. Not as much work for the viewer as clicking on the thumbnails.
.....AND Just as soon as I unload this bottomless financial pit of a house in the 5 below zero midwest, I want the one on stilts. No shoveling. No mowing. Just fishin' and lookin'.
Post by: jepinto on February 08, 2003, 05:24:00 AM
but I'll use the suggestions tomorrow!
Thank you.
And Daffy-Come on down! You can share my palm tree, anytime.
Post by: jepinto on February 08, 2003, 05:26:00 AM
Post by: Highmac on February 08, 2003, 12:19:00 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 08, 2003, 04:05:00 PM
But I was very surprised to see that your thumbnails were jpeg's! Have you tried gif's? They are much smaller files. Pictures as small as "thumbnails" aren't meant to covey all the subtle shades in a picture and even jpag's at no compression (if there is such an animal!) still wouldn't, just not enough pixels there! So most people (IMHO) just use a reduced size gif of the full sized jpeg. Most good graphics programs have a batch method of creating the gif files out of a bunch of jpegs (and even naming them for you - I add "TN_" to the beginning of all mine). Looks like all of yours are the same width anyway, that helps in the process.
As for labelling the thumbnails so people will know what they are; don't assume that anybody knows anything! At least use the "title=" attribute to say "Click to see a larger image." Another way is to put a border around them with some text stating the same message. You can do that easily with CSS but since you insist on using tables, you can do it there also!
Just create a gif out of the thumbnails you have and compare the file sizes. That's what controls the speed of a page loading.
On our church site, I tend to use as few jpeg images as possible on most pages. Instead I have links to pages specifically for images from pages specifically for thumbnails. It takes one more click of the mouse, but no one has to get stuck in a slow loading image page unless they really want to. But that's just the way I do it, there are many others, probably even better!
Jim C.
Post by: Bill on February 08, 2003, 09:35:00 PM
Even if there is no text going along with each thumbnail or group,at least insert a border around the thumbnails.
On the gif versus jpg for thumbnails.
Well if they're down around 4k,doubt if it would make much of a difference unless you have a whole bunch on the same page.
Think I wrote this way up there ... didn't I? <gr>
If the thumbnail is small enough yet see-able with a "yo,click the puppy to see big daddy" of some sort,you should be fine.
my 2ยข
Post by: RobW on February 08, 2003, 09:57:00 PM
Post by: Bill on February 08, 2003, 10:37:00 PM
Forgot all about this page and this one.
Post by: jepinto on February 09, 2003, 05:06:00 AM
quote:Using ColorIt, is it possible to do the thumbnail batch conversion? I know that I can make a catalog, add a folder of images, and get those thumbnails, but I can't get 'em out of the catalog to use. I've got one page to put up that has 35 pictures, it sure would help if I could use a batcher. Photoshop 5.02?
Originally posted by airbusdriver:
But I was very surprised to see that your thumbnails were jpeg's! Have you tried gif's? They are much smaller files. Pictures as small as "thumbnails" aren't meant to covey all the subtle shades in a picture and even jpag's at no compression (if there is such an animal!) still wouldn't, just not enough pixels there! So most people (IMHO) just use a reduced size gif of the full sized jpeg. Most good graphics programs have a batch method of creating the gif files out of a bunch of jpegs (and even naming them for you - I add "TN_" to the beginning of all mine). Looks like all of yours are the same width anyway, that helps in the process.
quote:I don't insist on using tables; I don't know HOW to us css. And I really do need to learn, because the new software we're about to test uses it BIG time. So....got any "big pictures, little words" directions? So far, everything I've seen is as clear as mud,
You can do that easily with CSS but since you insist on using tables, you can do it there also!
Jim C.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 09, 2003, 08:07:00 AM
I don't think ColorIt has that kind of batch processing, but I am now excited about Elements 2 (just got a couple of books on it, looks extremely interesting). It does have a batch function that can do this. I think Graphiconverter also has this capability. Never used PS.
CSS is a little less intuitive than HTML, but it is not rocket science either. However, it is less well supported by various browsers and can cause differences in what viewers see, unless you limit what parts of it you use/limit the browsers you support/use a few 'hacks' for specific browsers. As an example, sneakers sent me a screen shot of what our church site lokks like in Opera/OS X. Pretty bad! No one had mentioned the problem in nearly 9 months of the site being live, but that is mainly because there are so few viewing it and I doubt more than 1 or 2 have even herad of Opera! And ultimately, it is my fault for not testing properly.
Get a good book on CSS. Eric Meyer is a great writer and a CSS expert. "CSS, The Definitive Guide," O'Reilly.
Jim C.
Post by: Vijay on February 09, 2003, 08:31:00 AM
http://www.richinstyle.com/
Post by: Bill on February 09, 2003, 10:15:00 AM
Some browsers interpret thumbnail sizes differently.
Example is NS over IE.
Once created [no matter which way] I use NS to upload and download.I know the size when created ... the server reflects the same size ... downloading is the same.
IE has a tendency to blow the thumbnail way up in size when downloading.
Post by: jepinto on February 09, 2003, 10:22:00 AM
quote:Dhan-ya-vaad
Originally posted by Vijay:
Neat tutorial site for HTML and CSS.
http://www.richinstyle.com/
Post by: Vijay on February 09, 2003, 12:07:00 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 10, 2003, 12:53:00 PM
The extremly small file sizes were done in Elements "Save for Web..." option. This removes just about every un-needed byte from any jpag or gif. It leaves a 'generic' icon on the file, if you don't have the full version of PhotoShop installed because the Creator code is 8BIM instead of 8ELE. But that is no big thing.
Frankly, my eyes just can't see much (if any) difference in any of the thumbnails in this example! I just picked the image quickly since it had several colors, even if not much contrast. The image you start with will undoubtedly make a bigger difference, so "try before you buy!" (How do you say that in Hindi, vijay?!)
Jim C.
[ 02-10-2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: airbusdriver ]
Post by: Vijay on February 12, 2003, 07:03:00 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 12, 2003, 08:07:00 AM
Jim C.
BTW, did I ever tell you how happy I am to see you back here? Well, I am!
Post by: Vijay on February 12, 2003, 01:53:00 PM
Post by: jepinto on February 12, 2003, 04:34:00 PM
[ 02-12-2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: jepinto ]
Post by: () on February 13, 2003, 10:53:00 PM
Tonye
Post by: jepinto on February 15, 2003, 10:48:00 AM
Post by: Bill on February 15, 2003, 11:05:00 PM
the second picture (not the thumbnail one) for some reason took some time to load.
The thumbnails loaded real fast.
Once the page was cashed,the page loaded just fine the second time around.
I'm in Jag 10.2.4. btw.
I'll re-shoe into 9 and see what's up there.
Same in 9 Jen.
The second pic and the thumbnails had a race loading.
Thumbnails won.
[ 02-15-2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Bill ]
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 15, 2003, 01:33:00 PM
Site loads fine and fast on cable! Might want to watch what gets into each picture. If you've got a digital, you should be able to see it afterwards, especially when using a flash, objects that are close will be too bright. That view of the shower/bathroom really doesn't need the towel showing!
Jim C.
Post by: Gary S on February 15, 2003, 02:27:00 PM
Your site loaded lean, mean and fast for me. Nice work!
Post by: jepinto on February 15, 2003, 02:57:00 PM
Bill-it oughtn't. The second pic is roughly twice the size of the thumbnails....I made it a bit smaller though.
Jim-Heck, I don't know what half of those things are! The second pic is titled Morenurs.jpg. HAH! And just what in the sand hills of Wisconsin is that?
which brigs me to Gary-Thank you
HOATT took the pics with his 4.5 mp Canon. I've had to scale the images down 25% just to see them, never mind what scaling must be done for the web page.
One of these days, I gotta remember to ask someone here how to utilize the large size for anything other than aggravation factor. My Fuji is 1.5 mp and for the web work, those 1280x720 pics are too big!
Post by: jepinto on February 15, 2003, 08:06:00 PM
Post by: Bill on February 15, 2003, 08:42:00 PM
Just checked again and now that pic beat the thumbnails (barely) to the finish line.
Either way, there wasn't much of a problem anyways with the page. <gr>
Post by: LR827 on February 16, 2003, 10:06:00 AM
No problem loading the agrafarm. And since Snuffysbluff bought the one on stilts, I want this one!
P. S. Bill, you are one naughty guy!
Post by: Bill on February 16, 2003, 02:39:00 PM
I do my best.