My deep sky website updated

[kinetic (Steve)]

Hi,

After having my free webhosting facility dumped by my ISP,
I have begun to create a new gallery of my stuff.
So far I've done just the DSI stuff.
Here is the page for my best results with the DSI II Pro/ 12"
Newt/ Homemade GEM combination.

http://jfbo.webs.com/dsiproiiimages.htm

forgive my terrible HTML skills!

PS Would also appreciate any views on how bad it looks on different
screen resolutions and browsers (Made and viewed on 1024x768 Mozilla)

Steve

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Steve,

Have you tried JAlbum? It's very easy to both install and use. Simply point it to the directory where your images are, and it'll auto create the html pages, thumbnails, the lot.

Dave

[kinetic (Steve)]

Thanks Dave,

I just checked your site, that's obviously been done with JAlbum.
I like the minimal folder format....
A few questions if you don't mind:

The info below each of your photos...was that read directly from
the DSLR FIT type header or is that your own custom text?

How much control do you have over page layout. Would that be
mainly determined by the upload site preferences/ templates or
over-ridden by JAlbum?

My preference was always to write up a page in HTML and
preview it in MSFrontpage. But with several moves now (ISPs
changing their terms of service etc...the HTML gets a bit untidy,
fragmented and mostly redundant....I even found references
in it from 2 ISPs ago
And when you don't HTML for a few years at a time then you get sloppy
as well

Thanks for the tip.

Steve

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Only the gallery pages have been done in JAlbum. The rest of my site is hand coded in notepad (and w3c complaint for html 4.01 transitional on both html and css I might add!).

The info below each image is generated by JAlbum, from the EXIF data. You can have this turned on, or turn it off, or limit how much data is shown. JAlbum is both very easy, and very flexible.

The style of the pages can be changed by using the skin of your choice. Skins quite often have extra funcationalities that they offer, beyond the standard JAlbum install. Chamaeleon is a very popular skin. You can change colour preferences etc for skins as well.

Go download and install JAlbum - it runs on all platforms, is free and well worth the time to experiment with.

Dave

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Dave,

Originally Posted by dpastern

Only the gallery pages have been done in JAlbum. The rest of my site is hand coded in notepad (and w3c complaint for html 4.01 transitional on both html and css I might add!).

Do you use tidy or some other validator?

Best viewed at a 1280 x 1024 or greater resolution and in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and above.

Glad I run Firebox. Definitely above IE7.

Andrew

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

I seem to code pretty well, with few errors. The few that are made I generally spot before validation (I use w3c's validation tool from their website as a final test to make sure all is good).

Andrew - if I had coded to full on w3c standards without any hacks to the base html code, none of the flash would have worked in FireFox. That's right - FireFox does not display flash correctly - it requires the page to be written to non standard w3c standards (using the non standard <embed> tag). Typical of the nutscrape engine I'm afraid. FireFox is vastly overrated. IE7, Opera, Safari, all complied with the correct <object> tag, which is w3c compliant. I could have happily had chosen to say stuff you to the *minority* users who use FireFox and made it work with all other browsers, but decided to be nice and use a hack to make it work (at the expense of the loss of some functionality when viewed in other browsers other than FireFox).

Dave

edit: I do get tired of the elitist attitude that many FireFox users have. Opera has long been a better browser than both IE and FireFox, but I see very few Opera uses harping on about how much better it is than other browsers. I'm curious as to why FireFox users are like this?

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Andrew - if I had coded to full on w3c standards without any hacks to the base html code, none of the flash would have worked in FireFox.

Is that true on all 3.x versions?

Originally Posted by dpastern

edit: I do get tired of the elitist attitude that many FireFox users have. Opera has long been a better browser than both IE and FireFox, but I see very few Opera uses harping on about how much better it is than other browsers. I'm curious as to why FireFox users are like this?

There is elitism and there is practicality. I'd consider Opera if it ran on as many O/S and hardware as Firefox or Seamonkey.

M$ supporting W3C standards is a comparatively new concept.

Andrew

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Oh, I agree that Microsoft has a history or well, trying to steal standards. It is slowly getting better though, and becoming more tolerable of open standards. Not great, but it is getting better. Opera is very nice - runs on Linux as well as OS X and Windows.

And yes, even on 3.x, FireFox does not support the <object> tag properly, unless it's hacked like I've done. I've simply used that as an example to show that FireFox has issues. And isn't always standards compliant. :-)

Dave

[lacad01 (Adam)]

Good to see you're back in business Steve

[jase (Jason)]

Great portfolio of images Steve. Good to see some colour in there amongst your noted high-res mono renditions. Thanks for sharing.

[kinetic (Steve)]

Thanks Adam and Jase.
It's all a bit rough at the moment. It should be a bit more tidy in a few
days.

Steve

[Jeffkop (Jeff)]

Looks pretty bloody good if you ask me Steve.