Thanks to Chris and Nathan for their insightful comments.
I had already decided some months ago to increase the horizontal
dimension of the largest image I display, from 350 to 450 pixels.
There aren't many at the largest size simply because I haven't added any
new images, literally, for months. Somewhat disillusioned I guess, and too
busy with other distractions.
I have just spent about 2 hours looking at galleries I have bookmarked over
the past couple of years, and the navigation of many is a lot worse than what
I offer. I'm not sure what to do about this. These galleries all were written
by
contracted web-designers, and not created by using off-the-shelf software.
When I look at a matrix of thumbnails on somebody's page, I never go from
one image to the next ( unless there's no choice, as, for example, in
Nathan's blogs which in obligatory manner load all progressively in
sequence, from the top).
I will pick out, say 3 - 5 from the 20 or so and look at those. Takes too long
otherwise. So, obviously wrongly, I assumed other people browsed the
same way.
There are two reasons why I have made the thumbnails so small (from
memory the width is 70 pixels)
(1) to have the index pages load as fast as reasonably possible, which
means keeping the file size to under 50kb. Not always easy. They still seem
to take ages to load.
(2) to fit as many per screenful as the constrained size of my index pages
allow.
I will look at marginally increasing these a bit.
Similarly, I try to keep the image file size for the "final" image to around
100
kb maximum, for speed of loading. This is also the reason I prefer "pure"
html; it is infinitely faster than Flash, and similarly faster than javascript
etc
filled pages such as the "greatpix-eu" that Nathan uses for some of his
pages; these take forever to load. The site that Ian Wilcox uses is similarly
very slow to load.
Sites where the image files are greater than, say 300 kb, I turn off unless I'm
*really* interested in the image.
I realise that the small monitor that I have is a limitation for page
authoring. I
don't have much option about this for the foreseeable future.
Thanks for the positive comments about my image quality. I get so little
feedback from anybody who might know what they are talking about that I
often wonder how they stack up in the global mix, objectively speaking.
Chris asked why I wanted to know how he went back a couple or three
pages in a Google search, on his laptop. I wondered in my head, if the
method used for that would also be OK when looking at my galleries.
Probably not, seems to be the feedback.
The only place where I have the potential for a sequential viewing of images
is in the main front page www.brianswale.com/
where, under the main introductory image is a line of numbers.
Clicking on any one of the first 9 of these will bring up what looks like a
new
image on the front page. (In fact it is a series of fresh substitute pages).
Thanks for the comments. (AG also commented earlier)
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|