smd_slimbox

Bloke · 2008-01-24 21:26:59

Glad you got it working marios, sorry if it seems I was being dim.

marios wrote:

regarding the anchor tags, I’ve hacked it in yours, (Quick ugly fix)… $aclass = isset($aclass) ? $aclass:“smd”;

OK, cool.

Works now, but if you just want to add this option in ?

I may do, but I think I’ll do what I probably should have done in the first place. That is, if you specify cellclass AND wraptag, the wraptag takes the class. If you specify cellclass with NO wraptag, the anchor gets the class instead (at the moment the cellclass is ignored if you omit wraptag, which is clearly stupid of the plugin!)

Doing it that way saves an option and I notice that some TXP tags/plugins do it this way by default so I should be doing it that way too.

Thanks for the pointer :-)

Bloke · 2008-01-24 21:52:06

Joey wrote:

The main difference between slimbox and thickbox is that thickbox doesn’t have the ‘fade-in’ animation:

Yeah, I read that in the docs too, though it’s not the animation I was referring to when I said it wasn’t “polished”. In fact I think I prefer the Thickbox way without transitions — although it can be disconcerting for new users who might prefer the animation to make it obvious what is going on when they click a thumb (I’d guess that most web users have seen a lightbox style effect by now so it’s not so much an issue any more). Plus, the animation can become tiring very quickly and is also not very well respected in the pro photography arena.

It’s difficult to explain but the last time I tried Thickbox it just seemed “clunky”; I don’t know if that makes sense. Like at any moment it’d stop working or not render the picture (which it obviously will because it’s an excellent piece of software). Y’know how you feel when you double click an install.exe nowadays under XP and it opens up a Windows 98-style installer? You know it’ll work but it just feels odd. Rightly or wrongly, that was how I felt with Thickbox. I think maybe it was partly because it didn’t seem to respond to keyboard shortcuts and I really like that in Slimbox (I’m a keyboard geek). Mind you, Moonbox doesn’t either at the moment so I hacked it to accept them in my version.

Now I haven’t looked at Thickbox in ages so that may well have all changed. What I love about it is that it uses jQuery and it can render all manner of other stuff like HTML and fancy markup very easily. Seriously cool.

With all the libraries and effects out there, giving you a means of getting all manner of TXP thumbnails and allowing any js library (now and in future) to work with them is where I’m heading with the next version. It’s working well on my test site. Got some kinks to iron out, the option names to finalise and a few “niceties” to build in, but if I get some time to do that I expect it’ll be out for preview within the next couple of weeks. Then I’ll take everyone’s criticism on board and make it work properly for the official plugin release :-)

jelle · 2008-01-24 23:52:23

Bloke wrote:
It’s difficult to explain but the last time I tried Thickbox it just seemed “clunky”; I don’t know if that makes sense. Y’know how you feel when you double click an install.exe nowadays under XP and it opens up a Windows 98-style installer?

Wow, I’ve been checking out all WHATEVER-box solutions (lightwindow, litebox, smoothbox, thickbox etc. etc.) around these past 2 days. I’m trying to find one that fits my needs, preferably a jQuery solution for the obvious reasons. I got this feeling with Thickbox I couldn’t quite put into words. Your discription right there though…..thats is exactly why Thickbox doesn’t “feel” right. I’m wondering if it has to do with animations and fading.

Bloke wrote:
With all the libraries and effects out there, giving you a means of getting all manner of TXP thumbnails and allowing any js library (now and in future) to work with them is where I’m heading with the next version.

Ooooh…looking forward to that. I really like this plugin. Not just the slimbox stuff but, the actual plugin features….the best gallery solution for txp I’ve found.

Last edited by jelle (2008-01-25 07:22:15)

Joey · 2008-01-25 08:20:38

I also totally agree with you Bloke. I also have that weird feeling. However, it is not exactl easy to point out why I have that feeling. It is actually a neat plugin ;-)

Looking forward to the new plugin :)

vixcurse · 2008-01-26 07:52:07

Just thought I’d post to let everyone know, after hard-coding everything into the page (img tags etc) and everything, I used a static- non textpattern page to test.

After hours of testing every tag on my page, turns out in one of the menu mouseovers, naming the “Links” button with id=“links” was somehow conflicting with something. After removing that tag (it MAY have been id or name, i removed both once i traced it down to that img tag that was the problem) it works perfect!!

weird. but i’m soooo glad i’ve now got it working! :)

(ok i had no idea i had two usernames here….)

Last edited by vixcurse (2008-01-27 06:14:31)

jelle · 2008-01-27 21:49:21

He guys….just though I let you know about another Lightbox jQuery port: http://code.google.com/p/jquery-lightbox/

Bloke · 2008-01-27 23:07:05

jelle wrote:

let you know about another Lightbox jQuery port: http://code.google.com/p/jquery-lightbox/

Sweet, thanks for the heads-up. I’ve downloaded it and I’ll have a play. I wonder how it compares to Moonbox…

jelle · 2008-01-28 08:50:42

Bloke wrote:

jelle wrote:
I wonder how it compares to Moonbox…

Looks and feels and works like lightbox. Don’t know about the internal code though, except that it uses “lightbox” as name….makes it easier to switch from the mootools lightbox.

Bloke · 2008-02-14 03:07:28

It finally made it. *music swells*

For anyone who is interested in testing and shaping the next major gallery plugin which will probably replace this one, head over to the beta testing smd_gallery page. It’s a radical departure from smd_slimbox but it’s infinitely more flexible for all sorts of lightbox (and more) effects.

Plus the code’s neater, more compact and more powerful. The plugin scales nicely with your experience from “no attributes” to “my brain hurts” and pretty much every aspect of the gallery layout is governed by a form so combining it with TXP tags means greater control should you wish to dabble.

If you have any testing sites or places you can play then please take a little time to put it through its paces and post some feedback on the other thread. I think I’ve taken just about every idea from this thread and rolled it into the beta, and then some. If I’ve missed anything obvious, yell!

Happy tinkering.

progre55 · 2008-02-19 21:35:17

Bloke:

I know I am missing something obvious, but I can’t figure out how to “hard code” where the top of the slimbox appears when the plug in is activated. When I say, I can’t figure it out, what I mean is changing the css (I am probably changing it in the wrong area) does not have an effect on the boxes positioning.

Right now it appears to be 60 pixels from the top of the page and I need to double that mark.

This is the first time I have ever had to adjust what is the default.

Thanks.

progre55

Bloke · 2008-02-19 22:04:50

progre55 wrote:

I can’t figure out how to “hard code” where the top of the slimbox appears

Try adding margin:60px; to the #lbCenter, #lbBottomContainer { definition in slimbox.css?

progre55 · 2008-02-19 22:08:18

Bloke:

U R THE MAN!

Thanks.

progre55

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#385 2008-01-24 21:26:59

Re: smd_slimbox

#386 2008-01-24 21:52:06

Re: smd_slimbox

#387 2008-01-24 23:52:23

Re: smd_slimbox

#388 2008-01-25 08:20:38

Re: smd_slimbox

#389 2008-01-26 07:52:07

Re: smd_slimbox

#390 2008-01-27 21:49:21

Re: smd_slimbox

#391 2008-01-27 23:07:05

Re: smd_slimbox

#392 2008-01-28 08:50:42

Re: smd_slimbox

#393 2008-02-14 03:07:28

Re: smd_slimbox

#394 2008-02-19 21:35:17

Re: smd_slimbox

#395 2008-02-19 22:04:50

Re: smd_slimbox

#396 2008-02-19 22:08:18

Re: smd_slimbox

Board footer