4 ms·

So I will get lightboxed even with my no-javascript browsing habits? I liked that most sites simply serve the direct image url to me. Lightbox is an annoying ey

by aw3c2 16y ago

So I will get lightboxed even with my no-javascript browsing habits? I liked that most sites simply serve the direct image url to me. Lightbox is an annoying eye-candy.

kyro 16y ago
I don't mind it if it's snappy and the image loads almost instantaneously, which is what I got when viewing this demo. Typically, with javascript, I'd have to wait a few seconds for the loading-wheel to spin until the image finally loads. Not that I can't wait a few seconds; it's just annoying.
- thwarted 16y ago
  Worse is when there's a series of images being displayed in a lightbox and because the whole thing "needs" to be centered and the navigation is not absolutely positioned, the next and previous buttons move around on the screen.
  - kyro 16y ago
    Yeah, I forgot about that one, which is by far the most annoying. Often times I have to scroll down a page just to get to the nav buttons. Down with lightbox!
    - andreyf 16y ago
      These are all criticisms of bad implementations of lightboxes. Used correctly, they can be quite useful. The trick is to realize that you're interrupting whatever other workflow the user is considering on this site. For example, a lightbox that fades when you scroll the page might be less invasive.
- qjz 16y ago
  But the initial page load takes longer because it loads the full size images along with the thumbnails. That could be a deal breaker with a large set of images.
- jmulho 16y ago
  Given the limited amount of data that can be displayed on a screen at one time, you should never have to wait. If the loading-wheel is spinning long enough to see, I consider that a bug. Yet a stuck loading wheel is pretty much synonymous with ajax. I see it literally everwhere I go. What gives?
hackermom 16y ago
You're really not the least annoyed by having to ping-pong back and forth when watching an image gallery, with whatever eventual content reloading that may be implied?
- pjscott 16y ago
  I open images in new tabs. No reloading; limited ping-ponging.
  - hackermom 16y ago
    I could respond to this with "in a lightbox gallery there is no reloading or ping-ponging either, and I don't even have to hold ctrl/cmd to open images in new tabs, so it's even smarter", but, instead I'll just point out that with this superb CSS-only solution you can open images in new tabs if you want - the best of two worlds, without involving javascript :)
    - pjscott 16y ago
      That's the number one feature I want in a Lightbox: for middle-clicking and ctrl-clicking to open the image in a new tab, rather than running some slow-as-molasses JavaScript animation that pops up a modal box and completely screws with my expectations of how a web page will behave. This CSS-based lightbox actually looks like the first good Lightbox I've seen, in terms of usability.
lwhi 16y ago
A lightbox is really just an implementation of a 'modal dialog / window' - which is useful, because it demands the user's attention before it can be dismissed. Being able to produce such a window in web applications could be useful in many situations - we don't need to limit them to image display. The fact that 'lightboxes' have been abused / over-used, isn't a reason to dismiss the technology.
- j79 16y ago
  "The fact that 'lightboxes' have been abused / over-used, isn't a reason to dismiss the technology." Kind of like Flash :)
  - QNX 16y ago
    exactly like flash, imho. I went so far as to remove it from my system completely.
risratorn 16y ago
A lightbox is actually just a modal window which elegantly responds to user interaction: the user wanting to view a larger version of the image. I actually think it's way more elegant and userfriendly than a hardlink to the image which distracts you way more from your browser experience than a lightbox.
lukevdp 16y ago
You turn javascript off to get rid of lightboxes? I can kind of understand that, but you're also turning off lots of functionality in modern websites/apps. It's like blowing your leg off because your little toe annoys you.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  I turn javascript off because it is mostly used to annoy me. Be it advertisements, be it tracking, be it lightbox-like things. I use few "web 2.0" sites. If I need it, I turn it on per-site.

by aw3c2 16y ago

So I will get lightboxed even with my no-javascript browsing habits? I liked that most sites simply serve the direct image url to me. Lightbox is an annoying eye-candy.

kyro 16y ago

I don't mind it if it's snappy and the image loads almost instantaneously, which is what I got when viewing this demo. Typically, with javascript, I'd have to wait a few seconds for the loading-wheel to spin until the image finally loads. Not that I can't wait a few seconds; it's just annoying.

thwarted 16y ago
Worse is when there's a series of images being displayed in a lightbox and because the whole thing "needs" to be centered and the navigation is not absolutely positioned, the next and previous buttons move around on the screen.
- kyro 16y ago
  Yeah, I forgot about that one, which is by far the most annoying. Often times I have to scroll down a page just to get to the nav buttons. Down with lightbox!
  - andreyf 16y ago
    These are all criticisms of bad implementations of lightboxes. Used correctly, they can be quite useful. The trick is to realize that you're interrupting whatever other workflow the user is considering on this site. For example, a lightbox that fades when you scroll the page might be less invasive.
qjz 16y ago
But the initial page load takes longer because it loads the full size images along with the thumbnails. That could be a deal breaker with a large set of images.
jmulho 16y ago
Given the limited amount of data that can be displayed on a screen at one time, you should never have to wait. If the loading-wheel is spinning long enough to see, I consider that a bug. Yet a stuck loading wheel is pretty much synonymous with ajax. I see it literally everwhere I go. What gives?

hackermom 16y ago

You're really not the least annoyed by having to ping-pong back and forth when watching an image gallery, with whatever eventual content reloading that may be implied?

pjscott 16y ago
I open images in new tabs. No reloading; limited ping-ponging.
- hackermom 16y ago
  I could respond to this with "in a lightbox gallery there is no reloading or ping-ponging either, and I don't even have to hold ctrl/cmd to open images in new tabs, so it's even smarter", but, instead I'll just point out that with this superb CSS-only solution you can open images in new tabs if you want - the best of two worlds, without involving javascript :)
  - pjscott 16y ago
    That's the number one feature I want in a Lightbox: for middle-clicking and ctrl-clicking to open the image in a new tab, rather than running some slow-as-molasses JavaScript animation that pops up a modal box and completely screws with my expectations of how a web page will behave. This CSS-based lightbox actually looks like the first good Lightbox I've seen, in terms of usability.

lwhi 16y ago

A lightbox is really just an implementation of a 'modal dialog / window' - which is useful, because it demands the user's attention before it can be dismissed. Being able to produce such a window in web applications could be useful in many situations - we don't need to limit them to image display. The fact that 'lightboxes' have been abused / over-used, isn't a reason to dismiss the technology.

j79 16y ago
"The fact that 'lightboxes' have been abused / over-used, isn't a reason to dismiss the technology." Kind of like Flash :)
- QNX 16y ago
  exactly like flash, imho. I went so far as to remove it from my system completely.

risratorn 16y ago

A lightbox is actually just a modal window which elegantly responds to user interaction: the user wanting to view a larger version of the image. I actually think it's way more elegant and userfriendly than a hardlink to the image which distracts you way more from your browser experience than a lightbox.

lukevdp 16y ago

You turn javascript off to get rid of lightboxes? I can kind of understand that, but you're also turning off lots of functionality in modern websites/apps. It's like blowing your leg off because your little toe annoys you.

aw3c2 16y ago
I turn javascript off because it is mostly used to annoy me. Be it advertisements, be it tracking, be it lightbox-like things. I use few "web 2.0" sites. If I need it, I turn it on per-site.