Testing lightbox

This post will probably be temporary because I am making it only to test whether I can activate the lightbox component of this template. If successful, clicking on the graphic below should use the lightbox javascript to display an enlarged version of the image “above” the post with the web page still in the background.

Winston and me me-at-chimney-tops.jpg Multnomah Falls in Oregon

Hooray! It works.

I’m going to leave this post so that you can comment on whether or not it works for you. If not, please leave a comment for me and in it specify what browser you are using. Thanks.

Update: Many thanks to Mike Neel who pointed out in the comments that the images I had uploaded were too large for most monitor resolutions. I’ve modified the original image and uploaded the other two so that all should now display more normally for most people viewing the site. (Note: For those of you viewing this post mirrored on the Knoxbloggers site, you can only see the effect of the lightbox script if you view this post on my blog.)

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Testing lightbox

  1. Perry Post author

    Thanks Mike. I hadn’t thought about the resolution size of the image, but that’s easily fixed. I run my monitor at 1280 x 1024, so I guess that’s why I didn’t notice the problem.

    Reply
  2. Perry Post author

    Mike, I think I should have it fixed now. I saved the file as 1024 x 7xx, so now it should show up better on your laptop. On the other hand I suppose I should also think about those who run their monitor in 800 x 600 mode too. Hmmm. I guess I’ll wait for the reports “from the outlying districts” to come in before I change it again. In any event, I appreciate your helpful feedback.

    Reply
  3. Perry Post author

    Thanks for that information Mike. I think I have the image resolutions set now so that they are appropriate no matter what resolution someone is running on his or her monitor. The mistake I made was useful because it taught me something, and that’s always a good thing.

    Reply
  4. Darrell Beasey

    Hi Perry,

    I get the picture popup just fine, however, the web page background , although there, isn’t readable because it has a black or deep charcoal color layer over the text area (actually the entire page excluding the popup). It appears to be part of your web page background like in your header. Based on your trial statement, I was assuming that I should be able to contiue to read any text not coverered by the popup picture.

    I use IE7, as my browser.

    Darrell

    Reply
  5. Perry Post author

    What you are seeing Darrell is exactly what I see and what, I believe, is intended. (Check this link to the lightbox description, and you’ll see that’s how it works on their demo site too.)

    The advantage of the lightbox functionality is that you don’t go to another web page or another tab when you click for an enlargement but the enlarged version just sort of temporarily pops up over the web page. When you click on it to close it, you are right back on the web page again.

    Thanks for contributing what you observed. And thanks for continuing to check in here periodically.

    Reply
  6. Jerry

    Works great. I’m beginning to see some of the possibilities technology brings to linking ourselves emotionally to others through the internet. One concern I have seen expressed about the internet and people, revolves around the image of alienated individuals sitting in front of their computers having sterile interactions with imaginary friends.

    Although I am sure this is a possibility, technology is providing opportunities for people to share their emotions—to have emotional linkage—which is the foundation of affiliation. Now we can share videos, pictures, etc. with “on-line” friends. The content of our interactions can be more genuine than face to face conversations, where the dynamics foster distancing ourselves or protecting our real feelings.

    I think it does place the communicator in a creative role. Arguably, you have more control over the impression you make—the way you are perceived. Your choices of words—emotive, static, imagistic, connotative—and phrases—genuine, direct, evasive—and so forth.

    The pictures you choose to share—are they pictures of you, you and others, your family, the environment? Do they convey emotions? A picture of you sitting on a park bench in autumn—a grey sky, solitary and alone might send the message you wish to send.

    When I compare traditional communications—face-to-face superficiality, body language, the gaming point and counter point of controlling ones affect and the effect it has on others, to the protective opportunity of the keyboard and visuals, I am encouraged that the internet and long-distance relationships can contribute greatly to forming and maintaining meaningful relationships with others.

    Now, if you’re going to ask me what a meaningful relationship is—don’t bother. However, I think I can tell you what a meaningless one looks like.

    Reply
  7. Perry Post author

    Naturally you already know that I am generally inclined to be favorably disposed to the benefits of technology, since I enjoy doing things online so much. And I’ve seen examples of people doing exactly what you describe, selectively presenting themselves in a positive light, controlling the information they allow to be public (which I myself choose to do often), and in general putting their best foot forward. Having been raised with Southern sensibilities about how to treat people, I see little wrong with that. In fact, I think I might even call it civility and common decency.

    But for the moment, let me take a different position than I usually do and acknowledge that there is a “dark side” to the ‘net too.

    In case you haven’t read about it (I saw it in some news story I read recently but just which one has now escaped me), take a look at some the links here that describe the so-called online disinhibition effect. Because of it, some of us allow the “Mr. Hyde” aspect of our personalities to manifest because we are online.

    Just last night, for instance, I received a forwarded message from one of my right-leaning friends, urging me to support a petition that opposes efforts to stop global warning because they would “constrain economic growth in the United States.” His message arrived fairly late and struck me all wrong. I wrote a blistering reply that exhibited anything but my “civil and decent side” in telling him just what I thought of his having forwarded that message to me, because I’ve asked him not to send me his political rants many, many times before, and yet he still sends them. Fortunately I had the good sense not to send that message. This morning, in the light of day, I wrote a more civil reply that still expressed my opinion and told him that I would neither sign the petition nor forward it, as suggested, to anyone. Had I sent my first response, which is far too easy to do, I’m sure I would have regretted it this morning. It was an honest response, but the online disinhibition effect fueled my vitriol in that my friend wasn’t there in front of me and only the glow of my monitor faced me granting me permission, it seemed, to explode.

    Technology does give us new opportunities to be either angels or assholes to a much wider audience than ever before. Which we choose to be is still a matter that each of us must decide for ourselves. Holding any emotionally-charged message overnight is almost always a good idea.

    Reply
  8. Jerry

    I agree. I have sent messages, and then regretted it later. However, damage repair is more easily accomplished through email. The medium facilitates penitence and expressions of regret that, for most of us, would be more difficult to deliver face to face.

    Since we understand this characteristic of email messaging, we can make allowance for it and incorporate it into the conventions of communication that accompany its use. So, I don’t necessarily see this disinhibitory effect as negative.

    In the long view, it probably contributes to creating stronger relationships. Physical presence is more inhibitive than facilitative in regards to understanding others. Remember back in the late 60s-early 70s when the Marathon therapy craze was in gear? The emotionalism of frank disclosure and honesty was disfigured many close relationships.

    Physical presence accelerates learning intensity and responses conditioned are more difficult to desensitize. Distance-conditioned responses require more repetition to obtain, but therein lies the safety valve in regards to counterconditioning.

    Emails can mediate the highs and the lows and allow more opportunity for clarification, amplification, and attenuation. That’s not to say that it is perfect, but I believe, if used judiciously, it is more than just an adjunct to face-to-face relating.

    Reply
  9. Jane Hascall

    I noticed that everyone else knowledgably commented on the intricacies of the technology, but all I can say is, oh no, now everyone will know that I had those ugly orange curtains.

    Reply
  10. Perry Post author

    Jane, you know, I hope, that you are the only person on earth who notices the orange curtains … or at least you were, until you called attention to them with your comment. 😉 It’s an example of how we notice the zit on our nose in a portrait while everyone else sees only the overall picture.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s