Yes. But seriously, this isn't rocket science.JazHaz wrote:So to add a picture you have to dive into the HTML?
Code: Select all
<div class="image-container">
<div class="image-frame">
<a href="gallery/full/coriolis.jpg">
<img src="gallery/thumb/coriolis.png" alt="Coriolis">
</a>
</div>
<div class="image-caption">
The Coriolis, the most common type of space station.
</div>
</div>
I think many would prefer to not have all the pictures on one page, especially those with mobile or otherwise limited connections.Corny wrote:the arrows at the bottom wouldn't have a functionmost users should already be familiar with scroll bars, though, so no worries
Yours displays 12 pictures, that's just one picture less than all pictures that are displayed now.Lucidor wrote:I think many would prefer to not have all the pictures on one page, especially those with mobile or otherwise limited connections.Corny wrote:the arrows at the bottom wouldn't have a function
Ok.. NOW I understand why I've been seeing so much traffic from Russia on my alt download site.. nice looking site.ClymAngus wrote:
You’re confusing cause and effect there. :-) Oolite’s had high interest from Russia for quite some time, for whatever reason.Diziet Sma wrote:Ok.. NOW I understand why I've been seeing so much traffic from Russia on my alt download site.. nice looking site.
Yeah pretty straightforward.Corny wrote:Yes. But seriously, this isn't rocket science.JazHaz wrote:So to add a picture you have to dive into the HTML?
Should be nearly self-explanatory. Only thing you probably need to know is that the preview-image should be 200x160, otherwise some of it will be cut.Code: Select all
<div class="image-container"> <div class="image-frame"> <a href="gallery/full/coriolis.jpg"> <img src="gallery/thumb/coriolis.png" alt="Coriolis"> </a> </div> <div class="image-caption"> The Coriolis, the most common type of space station. </div> </div>
If you use the latest version of the Google Toolbar, that now comes with a good translation utility which can translate Russian to English pretty well. On the fly too (well within a few seconds).ClymAngus wrote:
Because if you have to make a thumbnail anyway, you can as well scale it rightJazHaz wrote:Why don't you use the width and height tags to scale the preview image to 200x160 though?
But it would avoid losing bits!Corny wrote:Because if you have to make a thumbnail anyway, you can as well scale it rightJazHaz wrote:Why don't you use the width and height tags to scale the preview image to 200x160 though?
Letting html scale it would mean that you either have pixelated pictures or use more bandwith that you actually need.
Specifying the dimensions (without in-browser scaling) has the advantage that the browser can lay out the page properly before the image loads. Whether it will depends on the browser, other aspects of the page structure, and how fast it’s getting the images.Corny wrote:Because if you have to make a thumbnail anyway, you can as well scale it right :DJazHaz wrote:Why don't you use the width and height tags to scale the preview image to 200x160 though?
Letting html scale it would mean that you either have pixelated pictures or use more bandwith that you actually need.
Thats true! Probably worth adding the width and height tags anyway then.Ahruman wrote:Specifying the dimensions (without in-browser scaling) has the advantage that the browser can lay out the page properly before the image loads. Whether it will depends on the browser, other aspects of the page structure, and how fast it’s getting the images.
The image container has already fixed width (via CSS). I have no connection slow enough to test that, but shouldn't the layout load properly before the image this way, too?Ahruman wrote:Specifying the dimensions (without in-browser scaling) has the advantage that the browser can lay out the page properly before the image loads. Whether it will depends on the browser, other aspects of the page structure, and how fast it’s getting the images.
Not if you use overflow: hidden;. That's why the images will be cropped automatically with my CSS-file.Lucidor wrote:I think it will resize if you put an image that is too large in it.
