[Pro] jQZoom Evolution and Carousel

Thought I should post something to relax for the weekend.

I did some testings using an alternative to the paid MagicZoom stuff. I dig up a script called jQZoom Evolution that looked promising ( mind-projects.it - mind projects Resources and Information. ).

As in addition I finally combined it with Walter’s Carousel so Prototype/Scriptaculous meets jQuery (ohhhh). As far as I can see it works with a simple jQuery no conflict.

I have to admit that I haven’t had the time to document it yet, so it is more a “hey have a look”. And yes: the images. Ahhmm - people often complaint that they want to look at it immediately but have to wait until the night. OK agree, but I tried it with landscapes as well but it was just half the fun - so apologize :slight_smile:

So see you later??? under

http://www.kimmich-dm.de/testings/cpluszoom.html

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yes, this is always an option. But ask yourself if you really should cause people to download two nearly identical monolithic JavaScript libraries in the same page, when either one of them will do the whole job. If you are looking for a Prototype-compatible effect, first port of call should be http://scripteka.com and maybe second would be http://livepipe.net

Or, you can always go the other way and use one of the dozens of jQuery carousel effects in place of my Scripty-based one.

Either way, you end up with a smaller footprint for your (increasingly mobile) users to download and cache.

Walter

On May 4, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Thomas Kimmich wrote:

As far as I can see it works with a simple jQuery no conflict.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Point taken - but honestly:

Either Prototype isn’t sharing equivalent effects (which is fact in most of the cases) or the jQuery Scripts are much harder to integrate in Freeway (some even impossible the visual way such as images as a list).

But if I should really ask myself something (and I do):

Why are that much cool and beloved Scripty Actions on Prototype and not on jQuery? Even Showcase is jQuery and I ask myself something else:

How much longer will it be explainable to keep up Scripty instead of jQuery?

The last time I looked at scripteka (years ago) they had probably 10 scripts less than these days (latest update the 10th of january 2011). So I didn’t probably miss something since I had been there.

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On May 4, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Thomas Kimmich wrote:

Point taken - but honestly:

Either Prototype isn’t sharing equivalent effects (which is fact in most of the cases) or the jQuery Scripts are much harder to integrate in Freeway (some even impossible the visual way such as images as a list).

But if I should really ask myself something (and I do):

Why are that much cool and beloved Scripty Actions on Prototype and not on jQuery?

Because I wrote them, and I am a serious Prototype lover (and at the time that I started, Prototype was hot-hot-hot stuff – bundled with Rails and the darling of the Web 2.0 crowd). I’ve made several runs at trying to understand the jQuery programming model, and I haven’t cracked it yet. Prototype just fits my brain like a bespoke suit.

Even Showcase is jQuery and I ask myself something else:

How much longer will it be explainable to keep up Scripty instead of jQuery?

That’s a discussion that has already begun, and I’m afraid from my perspective that it’s going to take a bit more learning before I can honestly give you a timeline or a plan. I resist the idea on a philosophical basis, because in my experience and opinion jQuery can only do a tiny percentage of what Prototype can at an application programming level. Where it excels is at building modular effects that operate on the DOM (page model) in the browser. Prototype is more like the framework you would use to write jQuery – it’s foundation-level – and thus caters to a different approach, one that suits me better.

The last time I looked at scripteka (years ago) they had probably 10 scripts less than these days (latest update the 10th of january 2011). So I didn’t probably miss something since I had been there.

I wish that there were a similar “sugar daddy” out there for Prototype as there is with Microsoft funding jQuery development. There was a Prototype.UI project begun with great fervor to fill in some of the eye candy gaps between Prototype and jQuery, but without funding, it sputtered out after releasing “release candidates” of two effects. And that was years ago.

Walter

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Walter,

well - I’m still not totally through with this all.

First to note of course I know who wrote the ScriptyAction stuff and I appreciate it, especially the carousel, cause it’s so easy to set up - I know not one that would be easier and did it a trillion times.

The set up of two jQuery effects, in that case slider and zoom, is nearly impossible at least for my brain.min.js :slight_smile: so I’m at least happy with this testing scenario.

Oh by the way the .min:

I now let load the minified version of jQ which should be 95K instead of 250K. Am I correct if this helps in the first step? Is there a similar way to do it with prototype and scriptaculous as well?

As I said in previous post(s):

To me as an average user, I don’t care (in that case) about philosophy. I am a total opponent of flash and even that new html5 hype bling-blings stuff that are making me sick and crazy - but instead of it I really like some tiny smooth things. jQuery have them - up to what I know - built up nice - while all the other Transition stuff looks sometimes a bit from the past. That’s a pity - especially if you say that Ptype has basically much more to offer but nobody digs it out?

And probably the similar way you struggle with the basic core idea of jQ I do with the constructional part within Freeway - that’s the pain but that’s the deal (brain work) I personally expect.

I know all about your time, efforts and hearts blood you spent keeping things up running but what about you as to be the "Sugar-Dad 2.0)? Just a suggestion.

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On May 7, 2012, at 5:44 AM, Thomas Kimmich wrote:

I now let load the minified version of jQ which should be 95K instead of 250K. Am I correct if this helps in the first step? Is there a similar way to do it with prototype and scriptaculous as well?

This does cut down on the amount of data that has to traverse the network, but in order for the minified version to run, it has to be reconstituted in the browser’s memory space, and that takes up the same amount of space there as the minified version. And it’s simple math: two libraries is larger than one, especially in a memory-constrained environment like an iPhone.

I know all about your time, efforts and hearts blood you spent keeping things up running but what about you as to be the "Sugar-Dad 2.0)? Just a suggestion.

Microsoft pays several people full-time salaries to do nothing besides work on jQuery and jQuery UI and jQuery mobile. There’s nothing in my business model that could equal that. I would happily hack on Prototype and Scriptaculous all day long if someone else would pay my mortgage and my daughters’ tuitions.

Walter


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sorry, this should read ‘as the normal version’.

Walter

On May 7, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:

as the minified version


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options