I'm very new to bootstrap, and programming in general so please be patient! I have literally spent hours trying to find a solution to my problem via here/google, and the time has come to ask for some help!
Basically, I am trying to make a website for displaying photos in a carousel. I want my site to be responsive so it works on smaller devices. All my original images are the same size/dimensions (2304 x 1728 so 4:3, probably too big) and use the img-responsive class.
It looks fine on a large screen, but when I try it on smaller laptop screens and tablets, the image height causes scrollbars to appear so you can't see the bottom of the image/caption. However, the image width is responsive and shrinks to fit without scrolling.
I am of the understanding that the carousel size is dictated by the image size, so the logical solution would be to make my image size smaller in height - but I need to maintain the aspect ratio, and smaller images didn't look so good. I also tried setting a fixed height as a style but it didn't work.
What is the ideal image size (in px) for a carousel which takes up most of a browser window (allowing for navbar/header/footer), and how do you make it so the height doesn't require scrollbars?
Many thanks in advance!
My answer may not be accepted by everyone , but I think the only flaw of bootstrap is precisely the Bootstrap Carousel
Can not be changed easily (since as you say you do not have much programming experience), and does not offer a lot of customization
So I think the best solution for your problem is Owlcarousel , offers hundreds of customization options
OWL Carousel
Touch enabled jQuery plugin that lets you create beautiful responsive carousel slider.
Related
I have noticed that when I view a image in a browser using either the zoom provided in the setting or on a webpage using style attributes the pixelation is either negligible or un noticable. But when you use programs such as paint or photoshop or windows picture viewer you start to notice pixelation. Does anyone know how the browser zoom its image contents?
Here is a sample image the one on right is from paint while one on left is when viewing in chrome. The zoom is set at 500%.
For fonts, I believe it has to do with font sizing. Okay, so say you are in a word processor and type something up you increase the font size the text gets bigger. A similar thing happens in a web browser when you zoom in.
On the other hand when you take an image the resolution is set so as you zoom in the the pixels become larger and more noticeable this is called aliasing. Many times a program or browser, etc. will try and smooth the edges in the image to make the pixels look less blocky to the eye, this is called anti-aliasing.
As far as the actual algorithms behind behind paint or a web browser go, I am unsure. It may take some more research to find out.
I use the Kupu editor in Plone3 to insert images in the website, automatic scaling images, and make a smaller thumb with a link to the original image.
This is a tutorial of how we do that:
http://www.contentmanagementsoftware.info/plone-book/kupu/insert-image-properties/index_html
Kupu creates a new scaled image (not only scaling with css, but scaling it for real), and the result is that images become a little blurry. I don't know if this issue is related to this document.
The question comes to my mind. Is there anybody who find this issue too? Is there any way to fix it?
I think the only way to achieve a great quality images is scaling them manually with photoshop or some graphic editor. But seems that Kupu doesn't allow to do that. You must swallow with its manners and upload its self-generated images.
Well, a bit too localized, but we find main error. I want to respond in case that any user will be in the same situation...
Kupu scale images to a certain width and height. And later, the css rescaled again a little bigger, making blurry images.
That is the main problem, we reduced an image, then enlarged it browser-side again. We didn't notice until now that there was css behind the kupu implementation and "overriding" (so to speak) our configuration.
I'm using a CMS (read: WordPress). While I realize that Bootstrap will adjust img sizing on the fly, should I (for example) have WP create a version of an image for each BS span# width? Or do you think having span2, span4, span6, etc. would be close enough and just just the slightly larger image for the next span down. For example, if you need an image in a span1, would you simply use the span2 image?
I'm trying to balance image size against being practical and reasonable.
Perhaps this isn't a StackoverFlow question? My apologizes.
Well, there are no such limitations or ideal sizes. People can use larger than 1000px width images or lower than 50px as well. It is the beauty of bootstrap, it automatically resizes image if the span width is smaller than image width.
So that should not really bother us while developing the theme. One thing you can take care of is, measure the most used span's width in Web developers tool and set ideal image size little smaller than span width.
You don't need another function to resize images. It would be an overkill.
hope this question is ok on stackoverflow. I want to use a photo as the background for the homepage of a website. The photo will be take up the entire page. However i don't know what resolution i should make the photo. I was thinking 1920 x 1200px so that people with 24 inch screen don't see the 'ends' of the photo. However is that big enough? I'm worried about the site looking ok on screens larger than 24 inches.
Also anyone know how i should optimize the photo so it loads as fast as possible? Thanks.
Overall, this seems to be a question of trade-offs. The better the resolution, the slower the page load for a do-nothing page. Is it worth the slow-down to have the better resolution and avoid pixellation?
Also, I think you're asking the wrong question, since a 24-inch screen can be in multiple resolutions.
I would approach this in the following manner:
what is the largest resolution you MUST have your photo look "good" on? Then make your photo that resolution. If 24" is your target, look at what resolutions this size monitor "typically" supports and target that.
What number of colors you want? (or perhaps b&w / grayscale). If you reduce the number of colors (preferably to "web-safe" colors), you can load faster with the same resolution.
A program like Photoshop (or Gimp) will probably give you the most power in tuning these parameters.
Do you care if only a portion of the photo displays when your viewer has a smaller window?
I know this isn't a cut and dried answer, but these things seldom are (IMHO).
For a solution that will work on most modern browsers, you will need to place the image in a div with a z-index less than the rest of your page (see: Stretch and scale CSS background)
As far as creating a 1920x1200 photo that will compress to a small size, I would recommend trying a smaller size (e.g. 960x600) and see if it looks okay on your 24-inch screen. There are many programs that will let you specify file size for your compression (e.g. FastStone Resizer) so you can experiment and see what is acceptable. In general, photos with less detail and/or color-depth will compress better.
Another problem you are going to run into is aspect ratio. Even assuming that your web-site is always opened in a full screen browser and not a window, sometimes that screen is going to be 16:9 ratio and sometimes 4:3. You could try to create an photo that has a nice 4:3 ratio "sweet-spot" in the center and adjust your div using some Javascript based on the current window aspect-ratio.
Is there a standard max for the width of the main content area of a web page? I want to maximize screen real estate without affecting usability. I've seen a lot of sites stick to 980px or less. Anyone have any suggestions?
Target either the 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution.
For 800x600 it is around 750px.
For 1024x768 it would be 970px.
I'm assuming you're referring to the wrapper width since you mentioned 980.
The most ideal solution is to not think of pixels at all and instead rely on ems/%s and scaling, be as fluid as possible so your design fits on small mobile devices and your elements heights are not fixed but auto. Example being: http://www.456bereastreet.com/
But if you're stuck with web designers who still think pixel and you know for sure you'll be unable to get them to try making images that are liquid/fluid, I would say shoot for 960 pixels in width so you have enough viewing area in a 1024x768 with scrollbars in IE6/XP, but this really depends on your audience and the majority of your audience's screen resolutions.
Research, such as that referenced here suggests that people have a more difficult time reading long lines of text. That's why I restrict my content width to 800px or so.
You have to first ask the question. Who is my audience?
There's no "standard", especially in this age of PDAs/smartphones/netbooks/smartbooks/kiosks/etc... - while it may sound cliche, the best thing is to design a fluid layout not depending on exact screen size.
The answer may change depending on your intended/anticipated user base, of course (e.g. assume 1024 px screen width leaving you with 980 working px - and consciously decide that you are not interested in supporting anyone with smaller screen resolution).
Another solution is to allow size layout customization by making it into portal-like with user having control of layout of the portlets (ala My Yahoo).
960 is a pretty common standard, and the rationale behind that figure is the fact that fitting on a 1024 pixel wide screen will allow a big majority of your users to see the content without scrolling. See here for one of 100's of sites that give access to browser & user system capabilities statistics for some initial inspiration.
But in the end, it'll up to you to understand the structure of your customer base - if your site targets iPhones, targetting 1024 pixel wide screens may not be your smartest decision.
Not sure about absolute pixel values, but one thing I'd make sure of is that the text columns don't get too wide. There is a number of characters beyond which reading comprehension is impaired.
1000 pixels in width, is what I use which fits into the minimum 1024x768 resolution used these days without a horizontal scroller at the bottom of your browser ....