I have been struggling with a good layout for presenting images. As my goals are not only for the fellow imagers out there but also the people who just like to look at deep sky images.
I was wondering if you could give me your throughts on this layout I have started to use. I am conserned that it may be a bit too cluttered in my attempt to provide the image information - location - and exposure details. Also, using the click to zoom and pan and the full screen button for focusing on the image itself.
I have also been spending the last several months tackling HDR Toning in PSCS5 and am liking it a bunch. So I am featuring a 6 filter NB image that I used HDR Toning to improve details and contrast.
very interesting - I just looked at Chrome is almost 10% of the total browsers that are looking at my website. I have no idea why it would not be working with Chrome but IE and Firefox works perfectly.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say its way too complicated. It feels 'in your face' like a online shop, with distractions from the reason we are there, which is to look at great astro images. I liked how your previous version highlighted the image, and if the viewer wanted to know how, and where, the image was taken they could scroll down and paruse.
I'll put my hand up for the previous version of your website. Which I think is one of most functional sites for astro images display and definetly my favourite.
I'm seeing some anomalies in Firefox 4.0 (screenshot attached).
When it comes to interface design I learned using the 20/80 rule; only display that 20% of the functionality that you expect the user will use 80% of the time. Make anything else readily accessible through menus, tabs, scrolling, etc.
Do let me know if you need further testing.
I'm seeing some anomalies in Firefox 4.0 (screenshot attached).
When it comes to interface design I learned using the 20/80 rule; only display that 20% of the functionality that you expect the user will use 80% of the time. Make anything else readily accessible through menus, tabs, scrolling, etc.
Do let me know if you need further testing.
Cheers,
This is all great information. I have used the zoomify because it gives the user full access with very fast load times. I may have made things too complicated. I have learned enough Flash to be dangerous but I should stick to what I know - Astrophotography
I really appeciate eveyone's time helping me get this right.
1280x800 That will handle about 85% of the screen resolutions reported by Google looking at my webpage.
Thanks for the info!
Ken
You may find that ratio changes. A lot of newer laptops are using a wider screen but only has a height of 768. I find a lot of sites where I can't see the whole picture because of this.
I like the extra detail you have about each image, but agree with Brett. The picture is the main attraction, I will happily scroll down for the details.
You may find that ratio changes. A lot of newer laptops are using a wider screen but only has a height of 768. I find a lot of sites where I can't see the whole picture because of this.
I like the extra detail you have about each image, but agree with Brett. The picture is the main attraction, I will happily scroll down for the details.
Thanks again, I am working on a stacked version keeping the main zoomify height at around 650.
I see.
