• OzzModz is no longer taking registrations. All registrations are being redirected to Snog's Site
    All addons and support is available there now.

Help if I can

G

GaryT

New member
In order to help Ozz out on this forum, I can help a little with any style or graphics issues / requests.

I'm not a coder nor either am I a pro at doing graphics but, I consider my work pretty good for someone that does not use Photoshop and is self taught. In other words, I do the best I can but there are no guarantees. (although I do hold myself accountable) In this day and time that might not mean as much as it did in my generation.

IMHO, Ozz and just two or maybe three others are providing the vast majority of help over on vb.org Please, please, please at least be sure to support them in any way you can. If all you can do is say thanks, then don't forget too.
 
GaryT said:
I've been using Paint Shop Pro for about 15 years. I know it inside and out.
Click to expand...
Never played with that one but heard some good things about it. I hate, hate.... I mean really HATE doing graphics work. I'm pretty sure Ozzy shares that as well.
 
Man you have way more patience for that than me, but I may hate it so much cause I can not even draw a decent looking stick figure. :Cry:
 
I don't want a site review but I'd love for you guys to just check out this logo I put on my site last night. It's of my own design so if it has flaws or just plain looks like crap, it's all me :)
 
Max Taxable said:
Did you try my single image scaling trick i posted about Here?
Click to expand...

I've been using your scaling trick since I started building straight HTML site's back when Netscape came with what was then "Composer" in the mid to late 90's. This particular style, "Avenger" goes into what I call a "central focus category". As a general rule this type of style doesn't really need large or bold images far right and left of a centrally focused image. BUT, as is usually the case, there are exceptions. I always say that so if anyone proves me wrong (which happens a lot) then I can fall back on it :)

:rockon:
 
GaryT said:
I've been using your scaling trick since I started building straight HTML site's back when Netscape came with what was then "Composer" in the mid to late 90's. This particular style, "Avenger" goes into what I call a "central focus category". As a general rule this type of style doesn't really need large or bold images far right and left of a centrally focused image. BUT, as is usually the case, there are exceptions. I always say that so if anyone proves me wrong (which happens a lot) then I can fall back on it :)

:rockon:
Click to expand...
The scaling trick uses a newer CSS term, max-width that hasn't been around that long.

Reason I ask is, your image does not scale, it stays the same no matter browser width.

No one's tried the trick on a v4 yet that I know of, although Ozzy is slated to try it here. It is unknown at this point if it works or can be made to work on a v4.

One advantage is, you don't have to use a transparent BG PNG image, it can be a progressive jpg with much smaller footprint and no loss of quality, saving alot of KB. Like this:

myimagehost


That's 54 KB vs. your 133KB.

There would be no evidence at all the image isn't transparent, no edges would be at all detectable, and it will scale in both height and width, to any browser resolution encountered. Including and especially, mobile browsers.

I just want to see someone try it on a v4, is all.
 
This much wider jpg version of it would allow you to eliminate the BG image the style is using - I should have posted this instead:

myimagehost


Right click and choose "view image" to get full size.
 
Last edited:
Max Taxable said:
The scaling trick uses a newer CSS term, max-width that hasn't been around that long.

Reason I ask is, your image does not scale, it stays the same no matter browser width.

No one's tried the trick on a v4 yet that I know of, although Ozzy is slated to try it here. It is unknown at this point if it works or can be made to work on a v4.

One advantage is, you don't have to use a transparent BG PNG image, it can be a progressive jpg with much smaller footprint and no loss of quality, saving alot of KB. Like this:

myimagehost


That's 54 KB vs. your 133KB.

There would be no evidence at all the image isn't transparent, no edges would be at all detectable, and it will scale in both height and width, to any browser resolution encountered. Including and especially, mobile browsers.

I just want to see someone try it on a v4, is all.
Click to expand...
Why would I want it to scale when it's the same width as the fixed version? Although it may not be to obvious, scaling on a really large monitor shows a bit of image degradation. I make the image (if it's less than 1000 px) the size I want it seen at. I also did not change the width of the logo as it is the original width the style came with. All I did was overlay the original with the one I created. The only way I would purposely use jpg over png was if I was using a huge stationary background that was set as fixed rather than scrolling. Of course I think that is probably my least favorite use of a single whole image that spans the page. I understand a lot of designers do that but, I personally just don't like it.

It doesn't bother me at all to have an image of 133KB. 15 years ago when the majority of the country had less than a 1 gig download speed, it was a bigger issue. As far as the issue with mobile viewing, Isn't that one of the reasons for having the mobile style kick in when viewing with a mobile device? I understand the concern. I just don't go to the umpteenth degree to cover every single possibility of viewing device. Having said that, if my membership was higher than I ever imagined it would be, the degree of concern would be quite different.
 
GaryT said:
Why would I want it to scale when it's the same width as the fixed version? Although it may not be to obvious, scaling on a really large monitor shows a bit of image degradation. I make the image (if it's less than 1000 px) the size I want it seen at. I also did not change the width of the logo as it is the original width the style came with. All I did was overlay the original with the one I created. The only way I would purposely use jpg over png was if I was using a huge stationary background that was set as fixed rather than scrolling. Of course I think that is probably my least favorite use of a single whole image that spans the page. I understand a lot of designers do that but, I personally just don't like it.

It doesn't bother me at all to have an image of 133KB. 15 years ago when the majority of the country had less than a 1 gig download speed, it was a bigger issue. As far as the issue with mobile viewing, Isn't that one of the reasons for having the mobile style kick in when viewing with a mobile device? I understand the concern. I just don't go to the umpteenth degree to cover every single possibility of viewing device. Having said that, if my membership was higher than I ever imagined it would be, the degree of concern would be quite different.
Click to expand...
All those points are valid. However the scaling with single image is meant for fluid width only, for people who want the header to be fluid width to match their tables, as explained in the thread about it. Until now this could not be done without using multiple images to accomplish the result. Problem with that tried and true technique is, the images stack on top of one another on small screens. With this little trick, it doesn't.

I took the liberty of putting this header image on one of my styles that looks very similar to Avenger style as a example, here:

Technique style on my board

If you shrink the width of your browser while viewing this, you'll see what I am talking about. header and tables are all 100% fluid width and there is no stacking or wrapping possible.

It's just another design tool for the toolbox, it's not meant for everything we do. Problem is, I still don't know if it works in v4 or how to accomplish it there.

(By the way, that TOTAL KB load of that entire page is only 110KB. Entire page is smaller than your one PNG header image.)
 
Last edited:
GaryT said:
As far as the issue with mobile viewing, Isn't that one of the reasons for having the mobile style kick in when viewing with a mobile device?
Click to expand...
Yes, and this single image, scaling technique is especially beneficial for mobile styles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top