Horizontal vs vertical scrolling

[arlens]

Horizontal scrolling for a website is a no-no for websites. Vertical scrolling is
acceptable, so I'm thinking of re-designing my Park page so that the statues are lined-up along a vertical road. If I did this I could put my logo at the
top and have plenty of screen width for three pictures (125x125) and
the roadway. This would allow me to keep the layout of the statues that I need.

Opinions appreciated,

Arlen
http://wickhamstonepark.com/WickhamSite.htm

[donecweb]

Your picture positions are very messed up in Firefox, but look ok in opera, Netscape 8.0 and Maxthon.

[arlens]

Hmmm...the page looks fine to me with Firefox 1.06 and resolution of 1024x768.

What version of Firefox are you at? What screen resolution?

Arlen
http://wickhamstonepark.com/WickhamSite.htm

[donecweb]

I'm using Firefox 1.0.4. Maybe yours looks good because you are seeing you cache or maybe there is a bug in 1.0.4.

[Sharron]

Lol

If you are going to do it that way, you should have the links on the left side of the screen.The left side will always be visable if one chooses not to scroll.

Maybe a floating navigation, that moves with the page?

I like what you are attempting to convey, traveling down the road through the park. Or that is what I see.

I am on 1024x768 Firefox 1.0.4 and the images are lined up just fine for me.

[donecweb]

They are looking good in Firefox for me now also.

[arlens]

Originally Posted by Sharron

If you are going to do it that way, you should have the links on the left side of the screen.The left side will always be visable if one chooses not to scroll.

If the road is vertical then I could put the logo (with the menu above it) at the top of the page to be consistent with the other pages.

Originally Posted by Sharron

I like what you are attempting to convey, traveling down the road through the park. Or that is what I see.

Yes that is what I am tring to convey... a simple drive in the park.

I've been thinking about the orientation of the pictures if the road is vertical and somehow it doesn't seem as natural. The pictures would have to be parallel to the roadway if vertical. With the horizontal road the pictures seem to have a better orientation.

Arlen
http://wickhamstonepark.com/WickhamSite.htm

[JWJ]

Arlen, think about tappering the road ... thin at the top, thicker at the bottom. Not sure what technical problems that may introduce but it would certainly look much more natural.

[jonra01]

Arlen, you already know my thoughts on horz. scrolling. I have a few suggestions on how you can change this without abandoning the idea of the road.

You could still use the horizontal road, it just wouldn't be perfect at less than 1024x768. All 12 images will fit on a 1024 screen if you reduce the size by 10%. You could get part of this by cropping some of them a little tighter, so you wouldn't have to reduce them very much.

Another possibility is to use detail images for the thumbnails. This will allow you to make them small enough to fit the screen at 1024x768. Take a look at the photo and drawing galleries on my site to see what I mean.

You should move the menu to the top of the page. This page should have the same logo and menu as the other pages to help hold the site together.

A couple of other thoughts - just ruminating.

1) Almost no one is going to get the road metaphor unless they read some of the content first. That's unlikely, because most users look at pictures before reading any text.

2) The road layout doesn't really correspond with reality. If someone is traveling down the road they are seeing the statues from the side. In your layout they are seeing them from straight on. This perspective would require that they stand across the road, which doesn't seem likely given the description of the area.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by donecweb

I'm using Firefox 1.0.4. Maybe yours looks good because you are seeing you cache or maybe there is a bug in 1.0.4.

I think this may have been discussed before, but it seems that things usually line up after a refresh in FireFox. Couldn't tell ya why though!