How many fingers am I holding up?

[foxgrrl]

Two more questions:

1. Are the following images too big, too small, or just right?
2. Do these two blocks of photos look exactly the same in your friends page style?

In my LJ style, the photos with hyperlinks anchored to them, appear with green borders. But otherwise they are laid out in the same number of columns and rows.

Because expanding the LJ-Cuts changes the style you're viewing this under to my [foxgrrl] default style. Click on this link to view this post in your own style:

http://foxgrrl.livejournal.com/55689.html?style=mine

Update 1:

I tweeked the HTML a bit, now it should look the same, except that the vertical line spacing is a bit different. (I'll deal with that later&hellip) Hopefully now it should wrap — that's the important part.

Update 2:

I found to problem with the borders; It was rather obvious in hindsight. Setting border=0 on the IMG tags did the trick. I'd been trying to set the border with style="border:0" and stuff on the <A> tags.

Photos without hyperlinks:

---

---

Photos with hyperlinks:

---

---

Comments

[anaisdjuna.livejournal.com]

They look great. Size works. No green borders. Gorgeous photos!

[chirik.livejournal.com]

Block borders in my style, otherwise the same.

Look fine.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

1) Yes
2) Yes

[m0usegrrl.livejournal.com]

The size works for me -- I get two pictures in each row instead of three in my style, but that's Component for ya... Plus the photos with links have orange borders. Gorgeous photos, by the way!

[arethinn]

In a comment page they are not the same width. Table one is 4x4 and table two is 3x6 (the sixth row has only 1 cell in it). I didn't have the patience to reload it in your journal or in my friends page to see what behaviour it exhibited there.

This was huge and took me so forever to load that I only got through about half of it before giving up in frustration. (Please rememeber the little children who are on dialup...)

[foxgrrl]

Oops, sorry. I switched to using PNGs for the smaller sizes (100x150), and these, because I wanted to avoid the artifacting of JPEG. So, I'm guessing you vote for Too big, filesize.

[solarbird]

They look fine in my style and yours, and in both cases, on OSX 10.3.9/Safari, the two blocks look the same.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

Size is fine, though the borders on the hyperlinked images are cyan for me. I don't think that's important, but I don't get to say 'cyan' very often.

[gidget23.livejournal.com]

The size is right and they appear the same to me. The borders are blue in my little window on the world.

[lokifox.livejournal.com]

Expanding the lj-cuts changes the style for me to yours, which it looks fine under, 3 rows of 5 and 1 row of 1 picture. The two blocks look exactly the same to me, except that the ones with hyperlinks have a light blue border.

[idea-fairy.livejournal.com]

I too see the style change when I expand the cuts. The photos are two across, becoming three across if I maximize the browser window. Like lokifox said, the ones with links have a bluish (could be cyan or something else similar) border but the two sets are otherwise the same.

Same width with both sets here.

[wolfwings.livejournal.com]

I get small underscores between the images with hyperlinks due to your structure of:

<a href=>
  <img>
</a>

instead of

<a href=><img></a>

This is due to the whitespace (line feeds) not causing a spacing difference between the images since consecutive whitespace gets collapsed, but still triggering hyperlink styling on the whitespace in the former. The latter has no 'whitespace' inside the hyperlinks, so no underscores, but also looks identical to both of the existing for spacing between the images.

Re: Same width with both sets here.

[foxgrrl]

Oops, yeah, there is a spot of whitespace, that explains some stuff. I didn't expect it to have any effect, but it's in an anchor, so yeah it would.

I took the spaces out now. The borders overlap, but I've set those to 0px, with the style of "none", and the color black. So hopefully they don't show up as black boxes on non-black backgrounds. (Though, perhaps not a bad idea actually.)

[foxgrrl]

Via the magic of CSS; It is done! Yeah, looks better this way.

[foxgrrl]

So do you live in the bay area?

I'm in Mountain View, CA; so, yes. I assume that you're in Sebastopol?

We may have met before.

[foxgrrl]

I think that I can make it over to Crack Chicken tomorrow.

[dakron.livejournal.com]

Tops set is four to a row, black outlines.
The bottom set is three to a row, and had a cyan border.

[aenaminie.livejournal.com]

The picture of the eye is freaking amazing.

[foxgrrl]

The picture of the eye is freaking amazing.

If I recall correctly, that's zarel's eye. I have some of kitelessd's eye too, it was his idea.

[aenaminie.livejournal.com]

I never realized how much the eye looks like the clouds in Saturn!

photos

[trema-slo.livejournal.com]

Two across in the post and under the cut. Didn't try "Comment" or anything else. Blue border in the linked photos.

The size is sufficient for vieweing enjoyably.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

On my friends page, in my style, I get two columns, black border on the linked ones.
Clicking the cut tag puts me in your style, and I get 3 columns, the appearance of black borders for both, but i think it's just the black background showing around the unlinked ones.
Adding style=mine, I still have 3 columns, no borders on the unlinked pictures.

[ivy]

The second set has black shadowbox backgrounds for me, and the first set doesn't. When I click through the cut, both sets are laid out in rows of three, but before the cut, the second set is in rows of two.

Both are perfectly acceptable layouts, though.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

I like the fullsizes images - they're HUGE and delicious. I like the hyperlinks because they let me see the fullsize ones.