Loaches Online Community Edition

[shari2]

one of the features I particularly like about this software is that when you hit the back button it takes you back to the exact place on the page where you left from. For instance, if I'm viewing Y. brevis on the species index and click back it takes me back to the species index at Y. brevis, not the top of the list.

Nice.

[shafer]

So how come googel analytics hasn't got my size on there?

.....

nevermind...one person hardly makes a percentage.

It does, I just cut off the list in my summary. The size of 1440x900 accounts for 3% on the loach forums, 2% on the main site, and 5% on the community site.

[shafer]

one of the features I particularly like about this software is that when you hit the back button it takes you back to the exact place on the page where you left from. For instance, if I'm viewing Y. brevis on the species index and click back it takes me back to the species index at Y. brevis, not the top of the list.

Nice.

I'm happy to take credit for it and all, but that's a feature of the web browser. Every modern web browser does it. Try it on the old species index.

[shari2]

You're right about here. But in other places it doesn't seem to work that way. I'll have to remember where I was when I was so annoyed by the lack of it. . . it was fairly recently, too. But I always use this browser...

[Mark in Vancouver]

Interesting that 19% are using 1280x1024

Thats my preference.

Me too.

[Martin Thoene]

This is a test.

I want to see what this look likes from a link:

http://community.loaches.com/species-in ... -lineolata


Hmmmmm.......I've looked at it 5 times or so now and every time the last photo doesn't appear????

(that's the Male sitting on a rock with bubbles rushing by)

I can see it on the site ok

Martin.

Whoa Martin! Slow down with the floating images buddy!

Personally, that page has way too many images on it for a species profile. But, even with that many images, there's too many that are floating left and right to have any hope of lining up correctly on a flexible page. If you want to do something like that, you're going to have to get more advanced and start sticking images in a table (a plain table with no border).

When you have that many images on a page floating, I have a really hard time as a viewer figuring out what caption goes with what image. Especially when some are on the left and some are on the right.

But, I see the male on the rock with the bubbles rushing by. No problem.

Ok, so how the hell are we supposed to design an educational page where the text is attached to a photograph that it relates to with this software? I can't relate to a system where I have no idea what it's going to appear like for someone else with a different monitor.

Is the only way with this (he says guessing) to stack full widtrh pictures one above the other with captions between them?

I can live with that, but it takes away any 'design' element from the whole thing. It's like reading a list almost.....boring.

I get the idea that a lot of text wrapped around images kind of locks them in, but what can you do when you don't have sufficient text to do that, but you're trying to show information related to a picture?

So basically as I'm with the 50% then.... half of the people who look at a profile will go "That looks cool" while the other half will wonder what the hell I was up to, pretty much as I did when I saw Mark's M. triangularis profile which looks perfectly OK to him......and that is a simple layout.

Martin.

[Mark in Vancouver]

I am all for allowing wrapped text. If the reader has to pay attention, it does not diminish the information presented. We don't want to make it difficult to read, obviously, but the "scroll down and get more specific" concept works for me. Otherwise, we'll have to rely on a mish-mash of addenda posts.

[shafer]

Ok, so how the hell are we supposed to design an educational page where the text is attached to a photograph that it relates to with this software? I can't relate to a system where I have no idea what it's going to appear like for someone else with a different monitor.

Is the only way with this (he says guessing) to stack full widtrh pictures one above the other with captions between them?

I can live with that, but it takes away any 'design' element from the whole thing. It's like reading a list almost.....boring.

I get the idea that a lot of text wrapped around images kind of locks them in, but what can you do when you don't have sufficient text to do that, but you're trying to show information related to a picture?

So basically as I'm with the 50% then.... half of the people who look at a profile will go "That looks cool" while the other half will wonder what the hell I was up to, pretty much as I did when I saw Mark's M. triangularis profile which looks perfectly OK to him......and that is a simple layout.

Martin.

I realize it's frustrating to have to design web pages that work on a variety of different monitor sizes. (and FONT sizes!) It's been a challenge ever since day one of the web, and this software doesn't make it any harder (or easier) than competing products.

One tip I might give is to increase the amount of text between floating images, PARTICULARLY if you have one image floating left and the next floating right. That way, on a wide monitor, there will still be sufficient text for them to float naturally.

If you have text that describes an image floating nearby, and it's absolutely imperative that the image remain "attached" and not wander off somewhere, there is something you can do. You can put the inline images and captions into a table so they don't get separated. I use this technique if I have a page full of images and captions and don't want to make the reader play a game of "find the right picture".

Here, take a look now: http://community.loaches.com/species-in ... -lineolata

You can edit the page and see how I constructed it. It's really simple.

[shari2]

when I view this version, this line:

The differences are clear in this photograph, also note the shape of the front leading edge of

is sitting with the lower edges of the letters inside the image...

[shafer]

when I view this version, this line:

The differences are clear in this photograph, also note the shape of the front leading edge of

is sitting with the lower edges of the letters inside the image...

Which version of the page?

[shari2]

the one the link took me to.

[shari2]

Ok. This is weird. I clicked the link again 2 seconds ago and now the line that is hanging in the image is this one:

male, more flowing in the female

.............

working on it, eh?

[shafer]

Ok. This is weird. I clicked the link again 2 seconds ago and now the line that is hanging in the image is this one:

male, more flowing in the female

.............

working on it, eh?

Ok, yeah, I see that. That's a tricky section to work out. There's really one too many images in that section for the text, plus it's kinda awkward with one narrow right-aligned image, one wide right-aligned image, and then one left-aligned image all in a row. Let me try changing it to something else.

When I save a page like this one, I always resize my web browser (dragging it wider and narrower) and look at the results.

I guess I'm just used to doing this since I've made flexible-width web pages for years. It must be really annoying to anyone used to designing pages for a book that's fixed!

[Martin Thoene]

Here, take a look now: http://community.loaches.com/species-in ... -lineolata

You can edit the page and see how I constructed it. It's really simple.

Already saw it. I wondered if you had "tweaked" it, realized the animations moved....and then saw a typo, so wanted to edit it.

That's when I discovered the table. So tell me oh guru, how "simple" is it?

As there's no limit on a page, it would seem a great pity to not be able ,in cases like Sewellia lineolata where we have pictures showing sexual differences, not to be able to illustrate that. I know that anyone can view all the images and we can caption those, but there'll be no cohereant order to doing it that way. Far better from an educational point of view to lay it all out like an article.

It's not every species after all. Some warrant more coverage, and sometimes it's stronger in image than it is in text. I can write reams describing the sexual differences or I can say look here, and here, note this and this. Sometimes there will be insufficient text for full wraps.

It worked OK for the Loach Almanac though yeah? Loads of text.

You said the Botia unknown01 was good though. Is that because it's more vertically stacked? Stacked I can do if I have to ......but I'll want to go 600 x 600 every time then because space is so.....tempting

Jeff Martin

[shafer]

That's when I discovered the table. So tell me oh guru, how "simple" is it?

As there's no limit on a page, it would seem a great pity to not be able ,in cases like Sewellia lineolata where we have pictures showing sexual differences, not to be able to illustrate that. I know that anyone can view all the images and we can caption those, but there'll be no coherent order to doing it that way. Far better from an educational point of view to lay it all out like an article.

It's not every species after all. Some warrant more coverage, and sometimes it's stronger in image than it is in text. I can write reams describing the sexual differences or I can say look here, and here, note this and this. Sometimes there will be insufficient text for full wraps.

It worked OK for the Loach Almanac though yeah? Loads of text.

You said the Botia unknown01 was good though. Is that because it's more vertically stacked? Stacked I can do if I have to ......but I'll want to go 600 x 600 every time then because space is so.....tempting

Ok, so I'm done editing: http://community.loaches.com/species-in ... -lineolata

Let me clarify; I'm not opposed to adding lots of images on a species profile when there's a good reason. This page was definitely an example of good time to add the pics, especially in the bottom half of the page. I was just trying to find a better, more flexible way to present the same material.

Notice that I broke the text up into two sections, and had a smaller number of images associated with each (but still the same number of total images). That made it easier to get a correct "fit".

The table works best if you have all the content written and formatted first, and then copy & paste it into the table. It's kinda annoying to use for fancy formatted text, so I wouldn't particularly recommend it to anyone unless you're feeling adventurous. You'd probably be better off laying out the page with header then image one after another, and then emailing me and asking if I can find a better way to fit it all in.