mgetty --> Web-Page

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 23, 1998 at 10:49:01PM +0200, Simone Demmel wrote:
> Yes, and most I would like it to have the viewfax behaviour (perhaps an
> additional menue for the friends of buttons)

A definite need that I see is the ability to scale "quickly", without
going to a "larger/smaller" button somewhere on the page.

Hmmm.

I just got another idea, variant of what Randy suggested: serve (if
desired) a full-sized GIF image [isn't much larger than the G3, if 
larger at all], and scale within the <IMG> tag.  This wouldn't give you
a larger/smaller scalability by just mouse clicking into the image
(left/right button).  BUT: maybe one can do that with JavaScript?

What I'm thinking of is a JavaScript item that will kind of "reload page
with different scaling in the <IMG=...> values".  Does anybody know
whether that's doable?

It would definitely be less development effort :-)

> > Compared to the space taken by full-size images, storing at thumbnail and
> > maybe a 640-pixel-wide size really shouldn't eat all that much space.  As
> 
> The solution I wrote creates a picture on the fly if it is asked the first
> time and stores it on the disk. I think, this is the best way. (I've never
> seen a harddisc without 'out of space'. I don't know why, but I can buy
> what I like it is full in very short time... ;-) 

"programs are like gases -- they expand until they fill all available
room, and then they start creating pressure on the inside" (from a
colleague of mine, Dr. of Physics).

[..]
> Yes, this is the middle way, to pregenerate some common sizes. But we have
> faxes here, that are never shown so it is a little bit senseless to create

Actually, they are just being looked at by "viewfax", never by the WWW
frontend.  So it would be a waste of disk space to generate whatever
stuff for the WWW.

> pictures for them and Gert has nearly 500 Pages in his incoming
> directory (he is a ... I forgot the name...'small anymal that collects
> everything'). 

"hamster" :-)

[..]
> > > image, like those in /image with about 8 pixel-size and try to view them
> > > with width="450" height="600")
> > Certainly, but downsizing the thing isn't going to have that same effect.
> 
> You don't want to transmit a fullsized Image just to scale it down untill
> it is unreadable. Or to say it the other way round: I don't like to wait
> for so much data, just to see a small thumbnail picture. (just to find
> out if the coverpage has some information or is simply a logo).

Actually, I like the idea.  You could do "thumbnails" (very small, just
to get an overview), and then do 50%/70%/100% by means of scaling in the
<IMG> tag.  Or have it as an alternative for people wanting it.

[..]
> If you have enough disc-space, it won't be a problem to hold 100%, 50%,
> 25% and 75% for every picture.

Rule #1 : you NEVER have "enough" disk space.

> PS: when do you plan to buy a dual-p... for greenie? ;-)

Never :-) -- the current P166 is fast enough for about everything except
Neko converting too many faxes at the same time.

gert
-- 
Gert Doering
Mobile communications ... right now writing from *AWAY* :-)) 
... mobile phone: +49 177 2160221 ... or mail me:  gert@greenie.muc.de