I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms' in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for close-ups of
interesting flowers etc.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

Martin

PS. If you go to my site, the garden page has some Javascript. It's just a
fun animation and nothing to worry about if you've got Javascript disabled.

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
news
I'm planning on revamping my website (
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking
initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms'
in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for
close-ups of
interesting flowers etc.

I like lots of photo's :
- before and after ones
- arty flowers
- nice general views

Names of plants are handy in case you want to get something yourself
:~)


2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for
Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people
recommend for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR
and
scanning the prints?

Digital quality is so good now that I think it probably beats SLR for
the web. The only reason to sometimes scan in an SLR photos is the
extra possibilities you may have on the camera to do 'arty' things :~)

I had a look at your site........

I like the set up but may I suggest that you make the navigation a bit
more visible. I did not immediately see the drop down box in the left
hand corner.

The garden border at the bottom of the page is fun :~)
But the bees drove me mad !

The negatives in the side panels are cleverly done.

Good luck with the project and keep us posted :~)
Jenny

you could offer 2 trade seeds, or send out some seeds for free, of some of
the plants for people that like them

From: "Martin Sykes"
Newsgroups: uk.rec.gardening
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:17:43 -0000
Subject: Building a Garden Webpage

I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms' in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for close-ups of
interesting flowers etc.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

Martin

PS. If you go to my site, the garden page has some Javascript. It's just a
fun animation and nothing to worry about if you've got Javascript disabled.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for
Christmas.

Martin

And all I got was a pair of socks, Santa didn't hear me hinting about
the camera......

Art

"Martin Sykes" wrote in a message:

What do people recommend for
the best garden pictures -

Try placing a large mirror underneath selected flowering plants and
photographing the image. Always pick a nice sunny day with a good clear blue
sky. Choose white or red flowering plants as they tone in well with the blue
sky. A different 'worm's-eye-view' way to photograph plants for sure, you
should like the results.

Rufus

'Twas Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:17:43 -0000, when "Martin Sykes"
enriched all our lives with these
worthy thoughts:

I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting?

Photos, planting plans and cultivation tips, judging from the
feedback I get via the urg webring.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

Digicam for web, SLR for high quality prints, although the
digicams are fast catching up with SLRs for quality.

--
cormaic URG faqs/webring - www.tmac.clara.co.uk/urgring/
Culcheth Garden - www.tmac.clara.co.uk/garden/
Warrington Paving - www.pavingexpert.com/
Peoples' Republic of South Lancashire

cormaic CAN BE FOUND AT borlochshall.co.uk

"JennyC" wrote in message
...
But the bees drove me mad !

I originally tested my page on my old 486 running at 66Mhz. The bees were
quite sedate then. Now on my 2.4Ghz machine they're almost a blur. I'll
update the code to slow them down when I do the revamp. Thanks for the
comments.

Martin

In article ,
Martin Sykes wrote:
I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms' in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for close-ups of
interesting flowers etc.

The sort of contact I personally like is

Photos: overall views and close-ups
Names of any interesting plants in close-up, for preference!
Before and after pictures are interesting too, if you have them.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

It may vary depending on how much you can tell from the digital
camera's display about how good the photo you've just taken is.

PS. If you go to my site, the garden page has some Javascript. It's just a
fun animation and nothing to worry about if you've got Javascript disabled.

I did go to your site. I assume since you've asked you're interested in
suggestions so here's some (constructive!) comments about what you've got
already:

* My view of the page probably looks different from yours since
I use an unusual browser, but anyway, in my browser, your page looks like
some navigation stuff around the edge, but then the main bit of the page
is squished into a smaller area. Particularly since I presume you're going
to be putting photos on the pages, the use of only a small amount of
screen space for the garden page is frustrating.

* I don't like it when separate windows come up for photos,
because I've then got even more clicking to remove the windows again.
If you've a lot of photos, that's an awful lot of windows to remove.

* I don't like having animations on a page, it's really distracting
and annoying, no matter how cute. Particularly if it follows your mouse
pointer (I'm guessing it does that, fortunately my browser choked and
wouldn't do the animation).

* I prefer appropriate sizes for pictures, not too big they can't fit
on a screen, but not so small that you're peering at them (and large
pictures displayed with small width and height attributes are the worst).

* Not everyone has their default background set to white. Did you mean
for white to be the background in the centre?

* The navigation tucked away down at the bottom isn't obvious.
Plus in my browser it's got black lettering on a dark green background,
not enough contrast.

* Very sweet sun/bird/cloud artwork. You say that's yours? Very nice.
It comes out all misaligned on my browser, but still.

Sharon

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
...

"JennyC" wrote in message
...
But the bees drove me mad !

I originally tested my page on my old 486 running at 66Mhz. The bees
were
quite sedate then. Now on my 2.4Ghz machine they're almost a blur.
I'll
update the code to slow them down when I do the revamp. Thanks for
the
comments.
Martin

Ah ha - we are on cable and they positively 'buzz' :~))
Jenny

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
news
I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking
initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms' in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for close-ups
of
interesting flowers etc.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for
Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend
for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

Martin

PS. If you go to my site, the garden page has some Javascript. It's just a
fun animation and nothing to worry about if you've got Javascript
disabled.


I like to see pictures of the garden, and closeups of individual plants,
with plenty of information about both!

A couple of comments -
1) get rid of the bees - they are SOOOOO annoying, and cover the text when
you're trying to read!
2) I personally don't like frames - they take up too much space, so that
you only have a bit in the middle of the page to view information, which you
always have to keep scrolling down to read anyway... just my own personal
thoughts!

--
Chrissie
http://www.thegardener.btinternet.co.uk

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
news
I'm planning on revamping my website ( www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again. Two questions:

1. What sort of content do people find interesting? I was thinking
initially
maybe a page showing the development of each of the various 'rooms' in the
garden which were only started last year and an 'arty' page for close-ups
of
interesting flowers etc.

2. I received a digital camera (4.0Megapixels) and a scanner for
Christmas.
I already have an SLR camera with a Macro lens. What do people recommend
for
the best garden pictures - Using the digital camera or using the SLR and
scanning the prints?

Martin

PS. If you go to my site, the garden page has some Javascript. It's just a
fun animation and nothing to worry about if you've got Javascript
disabled.

Digital camera OK for web photos. Quality not yet as good as scanned
conventional photographs, if you believe the scanner review in the latest PC
Plus magazine.

Best to keep photo file sizes as small as possible, even at the expense of
picture quality. If photos take more than 5 to 10 seconds to download,
people are liable to give up and try another site. And remember we do not
all have fast connections, many of us still rely on modems and standard
phone lines for internet access. I suggest a maximum image file size of no
more than 30 - 40,000 bytes. Also, avoid resource-consuming animations with
slow download times.

Photos with brief descriptions are preferable to long-winded text
descriptions.

Otherwise, try whatever you want, you can easily change things if you don't
like your first efforts.

Bevan

"Bevan Price" wrote
"Martin Sykes" wrote
I'm planning on revamping my website (
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm)
this summer once the garden gets going again.

Best to keep photo file sizes as small as possible, even at the
expense of
picture quality. If photos take more than 5 to 10 seconds to
download,
people are liable to give up and try another site. And remember we
do not
all have fast connections, many of us still rely on modems and
standard
phone lines for internet access. I suggest a maximum image file size
of no
more than 30 - 40,000 bytes. Also, avoid resource-consuming
animations with
slow download times.

I agree with Bevan. 'Heavy' pages atke to long to load and thereby put
visitors off. IMO pages should not exceed 50kb.
It's ok to have really high quality foto's on linked pages, providing
you tell people that they may take a while to load :~)

here's a coiple of links with extra info:
http://www.irn.pdx.edu/~millercr/pag...esit/size.html
http://www.edtech.neu.edu/webspace/d.../designing.htm

http://www.yournew.com/081601mail.htm has some interesting tips about
pre laoding images :~))

Photos with brief descriptions are preferable to long-winded text
descriptions.

My goodness Bevan we agree on everything :~)

Jenny

Thanks for all the input - artisitic and technical. I'll get started on
re-coding straight away and will hoepfully have something better up by the
end of summer once I've taken my 'After' pictures. To briefly address some
of the points made though:

1. Sorry if my pages look a bit odd on other browsers. I write them all
using notepad rather than a design tool because I've never found a free one
which did everything I want. If anyone can recommend something good that I
can download then great.

2. The bees are admittedly annoying :-) I'll probably be a bit more subtle
next time and I'll try and provide versions without javascript and without
frames.

3. I changed to popping pictures in another window because I find it
annoying to keep using the 'back' button (Which is very slow on a old
machine). I think I might re-use a single extra window though instead of one
per picture to save clutter.

Martin.

In article ,
Martin Sykes wrote:
1. Sorry if my pages look a bit odd on other browsers. I write them all
using notepad rather than a design tool because I've never found a free one
which did everything I want. If anyone can recommend something good that I
can download then great.

No, you're doing the right thing not using an HTML editor.
Your pages probably come out a lot better for different browsers/window
sizes etc. than if you did use software.
Software has this annoying tendency to make horrible HTML and to
allow the viewer of the page a lot less choice about how they want to
view it. Mind you, software that provides a nice environment than
Notepad in helping you to write your own HTML can be very useful.

2. The bees are admittedly annoying :-) I'll probably be a bit more subtle
next time and I'll try and provide versions without javascript and without
frames.

Why not save yourself some effort and just do one version, leaving out
the javascript and frames? You don't need to use frames to arrange the
layout - you can do it all with tables.

3. I changed to popping pictures in another window because I find it
annoying to keep using the 'back' button (Which is very slow on a old
machine).

Then you'll understand why some other people find it annoying to keep
using a different button.

I think I might re-use a single extra window though instead of one
per picture to save clutter.

Bear in mind though that the way some people do this, you end up
losing the pictures. You're browsing some site, a window with a picture
in it pops up, you minimize it, and then a while later, you click on
another picture, and then it's puzzling as to where the picture has
gone.

Another option is to put the picture in a page, rather than having
nothing else in the browser window. That way you can implement "Back"
as a link that says "Back" next to the photo.

There's no one option you can choose to please everybody. Some people
are perfectly happy with new windows popping up all over the place,
some aren't, some people like extra windows, some find it awkward because
they can't easily see two windows on the screen at the same time.
However, being aware of the different options at least allows you
to make a informed choice.

Sharon

It was a dark and stormy night, and as the people of uk.rec.gardening
huddled around the fire, Sharon Curtis told them this story:

* I don't like it when separate windows come up for photos,

Absolutely. If I want a new window for something, I`ll bring it up
myself, thank you very much. Besides, I`ve rather fallen in love with
Netscape`s new tags idea (several pages one behind the other in a single
browser window) and bringing up separate windows seems so crude these
days..

* I prefer appropriate sizes for pictures, not too big they can't fit
on a screen, but not so small that you're peering at them (and large
pictures displayed with small width and height attributes are the worst).

The size specifications are supposed to be for the browser to know how
much space to leave for the picture while it`s loading. I always make a
small thumbnail (by resizing the actual picture) and include a link to
the full-size version.

Rhiannon