Is there a slide show? (General)

by L.Willms @, Friday, December 19, 2014, 23:33 (3387 days ago)

I experimented with the img=thumbnail feature, and liked it. The actual image is loading really fast.

But what about a slide show like those made with Lightbox, Slimbox and the like?

Most forum users would not like that they have to close the image viewer, then select the next thumbnail, click it for viewing he full image, close it, step to the next thumbnail etc etc

It is quite tedious to do it that way.

Does "my little forum" provide the better was, the slide show where the user can move from one full size image to the next without having to return to the list of thumbnails?

BTW, there I observed bug in the placement of the tumbnails - the third one (at least in the first row) is placed about 10 pixel or so lower than the two preceding ones. That does not look very pretty. I tested that in ice-treff.de and don't know which version of "my little forum" is running there.

Avatar

Is there a slide show?

by Auge ⌂, Saturday, December 20, 2014, 22:54 (3386 days ago) @ L.Willms

Hello

But what about a slide show like those made with Lightbox, Slimbox and the like?

Most forum users would not like that they have to close the image viewer, then select the next thumbnail, click it for viewing he full image, close it, step to the next thumbnail etc etc

It is quite tedious to do it that way.

Does "my little forum" provide the better was, the slide show where the user can move from one full size image to the next without having to return to the list of thumbnails?

No, it doesn't. And –in my humble opinion– it shouldn't. Not, because I don't like the idea, but there are ready to use solutions. You named some of them yourself.

If necessary it's a task for the developer or an interested user to optimise the HTML and CSS code to support the *box-scripts.

BTW, there I observed bug in the placement of the tumbnails - the third one (at least in the first row) is placed about 10 pixel or so lower than the two preceding ones. That does not look very pretty. I tested that in ice-treff.de and don't know which version of "my little forum" is running there.

Can you please provide an example here, in this forum?

Tschö, Auge

--
Trenne niemals Müll, denn er hat nur eine Silbe!

Is there a slide show?

by L.Willms @, Sunday, December 21, 2014, 08:00 (3386 days ago) @ Auge

But what about a slide show like those made with Lightbox, Slimbox and the like?

[...]

Does "my little forum" provide the better ways, the slide show where the user can move from one full size image to the next without having to return to the list of thumbnails?


No, it doesn't. And –in my humble opinion– it shouldn't. Not, because I don't like the idea, but there are ready to use solutions. You named some of them yourself.

If necessary it's a task for the developer or an interested user to optimise the HTML and CSS code to support the *box-scripts.

That's what I am looking for. Let's have a look at a thumbnail entry that resulted from an image which I inserted, and let me explain what changes I deem to be necessary:

<p><a rel="thumbnail"
  href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Weener_Bahnhof.JPG/1024px-Weener_Bahnhof.JPG">
  <img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Weener_Bahnhof.JPG/1024px-Weener_Bahnhof.JPG" 
  class="thumbnail" 
  alt="[image]" />
</a></p>

I use as the target Lightbox-software Slimbox (www.digitalia.be/software).

The attribute value for "rel" should be specific to each post, so that in the case of a flat display of all posts in a thread (instead of tree), not all images are being shown in one single slide show, but separate ones per post. And the rel value should be "lightbox" instead of "thumbnail", and "lightbox-xxx" with "xxx" identifying the actual post.

Then the forum software would have to provide a query to enter a description or of the image, which would then be presented as value of the alt and title attributes of the a and img HTML tags, and would then be shown in the slide show as caption to the individual image. This query could be a field in a HTML-form which queries both the URL of the image to be shown and the caption/description for it. User acceptance of the slideshow would be low if they would have to switch between the slideshow and the actual post to see the explanation of the image contents.

BTW, it might be useful to provide for the user to supply a separate URL for the thumbnail, if there is already a smaller version of the image available, as is the case for images found on commons.wikimedia.org


BTW, why is the "inline-code" text so small compared to the regular text?

It should have the same font size. This browser is configuret to show regular text at 11 point, and non-proportional text as Courier New at 13 pt size.

Avatar

Is there a slide show?

by Auge ⌂, Saturday, December 27, 2014, 13:36 (3380 days ago) @ L.Willms

Hello

But what about a slide show like those made with Lightbox, Slimbox and the like?


If necessary it's a task for the developer or an interested user to optimise the HTML and CSS code to support the *box-scripts.


That's what I am looking for. …

I use as the target Lightbox-software Slimbox (www.digitalia.be/software).

And there it begins. Wich *box should be supported, wich not? Because this question Alex can't deliver a for *box optimised HTML-source-code. I think, this decision and the code optimisations is the task of the user. The documentation and the structure of the templates should support the user in the best way.

Then the forum software would have to provide a query to enter a description or of the image, which would then be presented as value of the alt and title attributes of the a and img HTML tags, and would then be shown in the slide show as caption to the individual image.

That's possible but it complicates the task to embed an image. It's not a passing by action to embed an image anymore, when I have to provide additional informations.

This query could be a field in a HTML-form which queries both the URL of the image to be shown and the caption/description for it. User acceptance of the slideshow would be low if they would have to switch between the slideshow and the actual post to see the explanation of the image contents.

A question: How much users will use this function in a forum? At the moment your description sounds more like a description of a blog entry.

BTW, it might be useful to provide for the user to supply a separate URL for the thumbnail, if there is already a smaller version of the image available, as is the case for images found on commons.wikimedia.org

No, that's to much, to overcomplicated. The software should handle this automatically. If you choose [img=thumbnail] the script should choose the correct image and link the other correct image.

BTW, why is the "inline-code" text so small compared to the regular text?

CSS/size of the used font

It should have the same font size. This browser is configuret to show regular text at 11 point, and non-proportional text as Courier New at 13 pt size.

In my browser the inline code is a bit higher than the (as default IMHO to small) regular text.

Tschö, Auge

--
Trenne niemals Müll, denn er hat nur eine Silbe!

Is there a slide show?

by L.Willms @, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Saturday, December 27, 2014, 17:12 (3379 days ago) @ Auge

But what about a slide show like those made with Lightbox, Slimbox and the like?

I use as the target Lightbox-software Slimbox (www.digitalia.be/software).


And there it begins. Wich *box should be supported, wich not?

In the first place, I don't know in how far those different solutions actually differ in the parameters they expect in the HTML code. Maybe there is no difference. I don't know. Since such a Lightbox software is just a pack of Javascript stored on the Server, there is no need to adapt to various software packages that might be installed on the client's computer.

If the various Lightbox implementations expect different attributes to the A and IMG HTML tags, MLF might decide for a single solution, or it might make that configurable for the Forum operator. I don't care. BTW, I am not a forum owner, I am a simple user. Please note that all these Lightbox implementations rely on "nonobtrusive Javascript", i.e. don't have any Javascript code inside the HTML BODY. The whole thing is just loaded by the SRC attribute of a SCRIPT tag in the HEADer.

Then the forum software would have to provide a query to enter a description or of the image, which would then be presented as value of the alt and title attributes of the a and img HTML tags, and would then be shown in the slide show as caption to the individual image.


That's possible but it complicates the task to embed an image. It's not a passing by action to embed an image anymore, when I have to provide additional informations.

The description which would appear as TITLE to the A tag, and identical as ALT to the IMG tag, and as CDATA of the FIGCAPTION tag, is the same text which the forum user would type into the message before or after the image which she or he inserts in full size. A FORM with two FIELDs, one for the URL of the image, and the other for the caption to the image just changes the way, the latter is entered, but does not require anything additional.

This query could be a field in a HTML-form which queries both the URL of the image to be shown and the caption/description for it. User acceptance of the slideshow would be low if they would have to switch between the slideshow and the actual post to see the explanation of the image contents.


A question: How much users will use this function in a forum?

I hope that all those who currently bloat their posts with full size images would use that. And as far as I can see, this is increasing.

Have a look at this: http://www.ice-treff.de/index.php?id=325387
Or, in another forum (powered by a different software):
http://www.bahninfo-forum.de/list.php?9

BTW, it might be useful to provide for the user to supply a separate URL for the thumbnail, if there is already a smaller version of the image available, as is the case for images found on commons.wikimedia.org


No, that's to much, to overcomplicated. The software should handle this automatically. If you choose [img=thumbnail] the script should choose the correct image and link the other correct image.

Well, this third FIELD is optional. Have the text over this "I already have a smaller version of the image to be used as thumbnail", and allow to enter an URL there could save a lot of transmission time for the user, who would have to get the full size image, just to be compressed to thumbnail size. Maybe this user is not interested in viewing the full size image, but has to wait for the transmission of the full image with lots of megabytes of date going over the wire just for nothing.

Is there a slide show?

by L.Willms @, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Saturday, December 27, 2014, 18:12 (3379 days ago) @ L.Willms

BTW, I would recommend to add a further option to the "image" button, which is "slide show", and that would result in presenting this FORM with two or three FIELDs in a loop until the user clicks on a "Done" button in this field.

And to create a HTML markup of this slide show as an unnumbered list UL with a CSS of {list-style-type: none;}, the LI with {float: left;}, and in the LI the A encloseing the IMG with {display: block;}. The caption/description to the IMG should be enclosed in the HTLM5 tag <FIGCAPTION></FIGCAPTION> (ignored by non-HTML5-aware browsers), and the IMG and the caption between the <LI> and </LI> with <FIGURE> and </FIGURE>

The BB-code would just change to an IMG=lighbox-showID and have one added parameter, namely a TITLE= with the text the user has entered as the caption/description of her/his image.

Is there a slide show?

by L.Willms @, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Monday, December 29, 2014, 06:23 (3378 days ago) @ Auge

I use as the target Lightbox-software Slimbox (www.digitalia.be/software).


And there it begins. Wich *box should be supported, wich not?

This is to the developer(s) of MLF to decide.

Since those Lightbox packages rely on a given DOM inspector of a Javascript framework which runs triggered by the evend OnLoad of the HTML document, and creates the event handlers which the lightbox package then uses.

So there are two different versions of Slimbox, one for Mootools, the other for jQuery.

So this choice depends largely on the Javascript framework used in the core of "My Little Forum".

I would just recommend to chose one implementation which can display a caption/description to each individual image when shown in the slide show. Without that, the slide show would not be accepted, accompanied by complaints like "I do not want to constantly switch between slide show and the text for the image".

Avatar

Is there a slide show?

by Micha ⌂, Monday, December 29, 2014, 11:34 (3378 days ago) @ L.Willms

Hi,

So this choice depends largely on the Javascript framework used in the core of "My Little Forum".

There is no JS framework in the MLF-software.

regards
Micha

--
applied-geodesy.org - OpenSource Least-Squares Adjustment Software for Geodetic Sciences

Is there a slide show?

by L.Willms @, Friday, January 16, 2015, 07:48 (3360 days ago) @ Micha

So this choice depends largely on the Javascript framework used in the core of "My Little Forum".

There is no JS framework in the MLF-software.

This can be added by a simple <SCRIPT type=text/javascript src=..../> in the HEAD, leaving the choice of the lightbox/javascript-framework combination to the board's administrator.

The problem is the necessary PHP-coding providing the FORM for entering more than just the SRC of the full size image, and the creation of the appropriate HTML markup which can be picked up by the Lightbox Javascript package.

I believe that, if there are differences between the different Lighbox implementations at all, those differences are minimal, and can be handled by an MLF configuration option.

Avatar

Is there a slide show?

by Micha ⌂, Friday, January 16, 2015, 07:58 (3360 days ago) @ L.Willms

Hi,

This can be added by a simple <SCRIPT type=text/javascript src=..../> in the HEAD, leaving the choice of the lightbox/javascript-framework combination to the board's administrator.

We consciously avoid a JS framework. But of course, the forum administrator can be add ANY library and he can modify the exiting code...

The problem is the necessary PHP-coding providing the FORM for entering

No, not necessarily. The forum administrator can add a self-written javascript, which selects the images and modify the DOM, too.

regards
Micha

--
applied-geodesy.org - OpenSource Least-Squares Adjustment Software for Geodetic Sciences

My bug report re thumbnail

by L.Willms @, Sunday, December 21, 2014, 08:12 (3386 days ago) @ Auge

BTW, there I observed bug in the placement of the tumbnails - the third one (at least in the first row) is placed about 10 pixel or so lower than the two preceding ones. That does not look very pretty. I tested that in ice-treff.de and don't know which version of "my little forum" is running there.


Can you please provide an example here, in this forum?

OK, here in separate post. Buit it works OK here... I don't know what I made differently. I used only the preview and did not actually post the message, so I can't easily reproduce the problem, since I also do no longer remember which images in which resolution I had used.

[image] [image] [image] [image]

My bug report re thumbnail

by L.Willms @, Sunday, December 21, 2014, 08:32 (3386 days ago) @ L.Willms

I tried the source code of my message in the ice-treff.de forum, and it displays the same way as here - I can't reproduce the problem, but I had it tested with a variety of sequences of those images I used back then, and had the same problem with every try. Strange...

Avatar

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by Auge ⌂, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 13:32 (3384 days ago) @ L.Willms
edited by Auge, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 13:43

I tried the source code of my message in the ice-treff.de forum, and it displays the same way as here - I can't reproduce the problem, but I had it tested with a variety of sequences of those images I used back then, and had the same problem with every try. Strange...

As first: there are no thumbnails in your posting. You embedded the original images from wikimedia and the BB-Code says it should be displayed as thumbnails. But it uses the original image in it's original size.

Alternatively you can upload images to the forum.

I embedded the images with [ img=thumbnail ]

[image]
[image]

I embedded the images with [ img=thumbnail-left ]

[image]
[image]

I embedded the images with [ img=thumbnail ] and without linebreaks between the image tags.

[image][image]

I embedded the images with [ img=thumbnail ] and without linebreaks but a blank between the image tags.

[image] [image]

At that point two bug reports.

1. I wanted to load up an image with a width of 240 pixels and a height of 400 pixels but a file size of 90 kB. The error message: Datei zu groß (240*400, 90 KB, das Maximum ist 800*800, 80 KB); translation: File to large (... the maximum is ...). The script limits the sizes to 600/600 pixels and a file size of 80 kB. If the image is to large in width and/or height, the script crops the image to 800/600 pixels. Why the script handles the file size not in a similar manner?

2. The image of the snow made arctic hare is a portrait photo. The script turns the photo unwanted to landscape format.

Tschö, Auge

--
Trenne niemals Müll, denn er hat nur eine Silbe!

Avatar

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by Micha ⌂, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:35 (3383 days ago) @ Auge

Hi,

Why the script handles the file size not in a similar manner?

As far as I know(!), you can only define the quality parameter (for jpg) of an image during the re-sizing process, but you can't define the final file size.

2. The image of the snow made arctic hare is a portrait photo. The script turns the photo unwanted to landscape format.

Really? The code seems to be okay:

// resize if too large:
if($width > $settings['upload_max_img_width'] || $height > $settings['upload_max_img_height']) {
  if($width >= $height) {
    $new_width = $settings['upload_max_img_width'];
    $new_height = intval($height*$new_width/$width);
  }
  else {
    $new_height = $settings['upload_max_img_height'];
    $new_width = intval($width*$new_height/$height);
  }
}
else {
  $new_width=$width;
  $new_height=$height;
}

Have a nice Christmas!
Micha

--
applied-geodesy.org - OpenSource Least-Squares Adjustment Software for Geodetic Sciences

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by L.Willms @, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 18:17 (3383 days ago) @ Auge

As first: there are no thumbnails in your posting. You embedded the original images from wikimedia and the BB-Code says it should be displayed as thumbnails. But it uses the original image in it's original size.

Yes, but scaling it down. Image info by my browser (Firefox) says:
1.024px × 768px (Skaliert zu 150px × 113px)

This scaling down is performed by the client (the browser), not by the host (the forum), since otherwise the browser would not know about the actual image size and the size of the scaled down image.

I inserted the images by clicking the "image" button on the right, and chosing "thumbnail". Actually I did not know if the forum software creates a scaled down image file and shows this or if this scaling down is done by the client browser, until you pointed out that fact.

I am not sure what the "left" and "right" paramter to the "image" do -- my guess is that this leads to some CSS code like "float: left;" and "float: right;".

Avatar

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by Auge ⌂, Friday, December 26, 2014, 16:57 (3380 days ago) @ L.Willms

Hello

As first: there are no thumbnails in your posting. You embedded the original images from wikimedia and the BB-Code says it should be displayed as thumbnails. But it uses the original image in it's original size.

Yes, but scaling it down. Image info by my browser (Firefox) says:
1.024px × 768px (Skaliert zu 150px × 113px)

This scaling down is performed by the client (the browser), not by the host (the forum), since otherwise the browser would not know about the actual image size and the size of the scaled down image.

Yes it's the browser that scaling it down at rendering time. So there is only a large image shown with small height and length.

I am not sure what the "left" and "right" paramter to the "image" do -- my guess is that this leads to some CSS code like "float: left;" and "float: right;".

That's absolutely correct. And that's the reason for the staireffect of the side by side shown images. With float: left; comes a margin-top and that's added for every image.

Tschö, Auge

--
Trenne niemals Müll, denn er hat nur eine Silbe!

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by L.Willms, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Friday, January 16, 2015, 07:42 (3360 days ago) @ Auge

This scaling down is performed by the client (the browser), not by the host (the forum), since otherwise the browser would not know about the actual image size and the size of the scaled down image.


Yes it's the browser that scaling it down at rendering time. So there is only a large image shown with small height and length.

But the full image has to be transported from the server to the client. More efficient would be to use a thumbnail already existing on the server; this saves transmission capacity and time, and computing time in the client.

I am not sure what the "left" and "right" paramter to the "image" do -- my guess is that this leads to some CSS code like "float: left;" and "float: right;".


That's absolutely correct. And that's the reason for the staireffect of the side by side shown images. With float: left; comes a margin-top and that's added for every image.

That can't be completely correct, since this stair only occured with the third image, not the second. The height of the DIV or IMG including the margin should not be the problem.

But it might be that I had one space character or what else too much between the two images.

My bug report re thumbnail and two additional bug reports

by L.Willms @, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 18:33 (3383 days ago) @ Auge
edited by L.Willms, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 18:41

2. The image of the snow made arctic hare is a portrait photo. The script turns the photo unwanted to landscape format.

I can't find any EXIF or other meta data in that image file, only a JPEG comment saying
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 70

Here are some images in portrait orientation, which displayed corretly in my earlier trials (No. 2):

[image] [image] [image]


Post script:
In theses cases, there also no EXIF date in the image files used; obviously it is the Wikimedia software creating scaled down images which is deleting all those informations. And it creates a JPEG comment like this for the first image above:

File source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hannover-Hbf_Aufgang-zu-Gleisen-7-und-8_LWS95.JPG and this original file does contain all the EXIF and IPTC data which my camera and myself had created.

RSS Feed of thread