Results 1 to 15 of 24
02-18-2003, 03:01 AM #1
I was wondering if anyone can help me. I am a beginner at making web pages, so how exactly do i get a picture i have made in the paint program, go at a specific place on my website. Thank You
02-18-2003, 10:07 AM #2
You may want to read the tables tutrials found under the "HTML" link on the right f this page.
02-18-2003, 01:18 PM #3
Convert the file to .gif (if not requiring more than 256 colors) or .jpg (there are others you'll learn about as you becoming more acquainted with web site design) before uploading to your web host server. The .bmp files take up a lot of space and bandwidth and are generally not used except to create the files before conversion to a more efficient "internet" format and size.
One of the best image tweaking programs is free and available at:
I just upgraded to the latest version this morning and use it for more than 90% of my 'simple' imaging needs.
02-18-2003, 09:38 PM #4
put the image file in the same folder as the .html page that u want to display it in, then include this line of code
if u want to put all your images in a subfolder called 'images' then the code would be
it all depends on where u placed the image in relation to the html page calling it.
btw its always good to make the pic as small as possible so it doesn't take 2 years to download. surfers are an impatient lot (dave for example )
hope that helps
02-19-2003, 11:02 AM #5
Are people sophisticated enough to begin HTML coding too dumb to know that and i/ folder would stand for an /images folder? Why am I the only person in a half dozen forums I've participated in suggest the former naming convention over the latter?
For example, on one of my own pages, there's a link to an image that requires me to place
in my code - luckily cut and paste is available. But, what if someone wanted to enter that URL from a keyboard at a public library?! Good luck - they'd probably give up before getting it all in there correctly -- especially when being unable to cut and paste at that 'public' computer.
RISE UP! UNITE!! LET'S STOP NAMING THEM 'IMAGES/' FOLDERS AND USE THE MUCH LESS COMPLEX 'I/', INSTEAD! ! ! Give our fingers a break, please.
02-20-2003, 09:36 AM #6
Good point. Never really thought of it that way. I guess that naming the images folder "images" has turned into a convention kind of like "hello world" has for your first program.
03-01-2003, 02:05 AM #7
I already have a folder called 'I' on my server though!
It's for installed Scripts.
03-01-2003, 11:31 AM #8
Then make one named "im" for images or, if you don't have more than a couple dozen installed script files, places the images therein, too.
03-03-2003, 02:12 AM #9
since everyone is used to naming it "images", it's much easier to just name it so. handing over a project to a new developer or getting a new developer on your team is a big enough pain without having to bring them up to speed on your unique file/folder naming convention. (just my thoughts)
03-03-2003, 09:08 AM #10Why am I the only person in a half dozen forums I've participated in suggest the former naming convention over the latter?
Last edited by sonofmidi; 03-03-2003 at 09:32 AM.
03-03-2003, 01:01 PM #11
Which of course explains why COBOL is the MASTER language being used, today. (NOT!!!)
And, in addition, explains why each enhancement of the Windows OS eliminates/corrects the bugs of the prior version rather than just adding on new ones. (NOT!!!)
Even though my recommendations were aimed more at webmastering to facilitate ease of URL typing by people all around the world, I'd say it could apply to 'internal' programming code, too.
I've yet to find a situation where any complex program using tricks to enhance speed and 'other efficiency' is understandable without having to re-enter it with an open mind - the variable naming convention not helping much at all -- in fact, with those that don't even use the simple for I ... next I and similar single digit variables for common practices, the code is even more complex.
And, new people bring new ideas, so it oftentimes is better for them to NOT UNDERSTAND THE OLD CODE but bring fresh thinking to the process by having to get into the code from scratch.
The proof lies in the pudding - were longer naming to simplify things more efficient, then COBOL would have always been more efficient and the each enhancement of the Windows OS would be getting geometrically more efficient. [And, the people taking over Netscape wouldn't have screwed it up so much.]
I think any sort of decent code is too complex for anyone to understand it and must be re-written from scratch (regardless of cost) when going from one plateau to the next. Nowadays, that would mean that while one team is presenting a new OS to the world, another entirely distinct team is 'reverse engineering it' to bring forth its next, enhanced version written with all the capabilities of the prior AND THE NEW ENHANCEMENTS.
Looking at each version of Windows makes one think it's being designed by a team of programmers who always think their names or ideas must be okay without having bothered to look at what was used in the prior version. (Where's the damn send to folder hidden in the latest OS?!)
Last edited by benzden; 03-03-2003 at 01:04 PM.
03-03-2003, 04:05 PM #12I think any sort of decent code is too complex for anyone to understand it and must be re-written from scratch (regardless of cost) when going from one plateau to the next. Nowadays, that would mean that while one team is presenting a new OS to the world, another entirely distinct team is 'reverse engineering it' to bring forth its next, enhanced version written with all the capabilities of the prior AND THE NEW ENHANCEMENTS.
03-03-2003, 04:15 PM #13
Its a hidden folder in documents and settings/username on win2k. Dunno about xp.
Re-writing code from scratch to improve it? bah. A good programmer makes modular, object-orientated code that can be re-used in many applications. hence 'libs' or libraries.
well written 'classes' can be used EVERYWHERE where a need for them exists. Without ANY re-writing of the code.
I would hate to re-write my email class everytime I needed my page to send an email.
'bout a year ago, I picked up my companies intranet to look after. Not only was it asp (no prior experience!) but the code was written by a one-armed monkey. It was awful. I ended up doing as you suggested and re-writing the whole thing from scratch, including the database.
If it was well-written, with well named variables and good commenting, I could probably have done it in half the time.
In the real world, its just not practical to re-write a 4000 line program just to add a new feature. Good code will enable you to add this needed new feature in half-an-hour. bad code will make a week-long job of it. Trust me. I have had to do exactly that 2 months ago (re-wrote our knowledgebase/user system).
Coding standards are essential.
03-03-2003, 07:03 PM #14
Adding a new procedure, capability or feature (or a few dozen) to a program isn't moving it to a new plateau and doesn't require a rewrite from scratch - but it should make the author(s) look at the process that led up to a 'released' code with so much stuff left out of it in the first place. What I mean is when the code moves from one universe to another - much as like from Win 3.1 to Windows 95.
Or, when any of the current versions of browsers move up to something that includes all their previous features and the new (needed) features that make browsing in a pop-up/under world more efficient OR any version of Windows after what's released right now. Rather than make the next upgrade Windows WMP (WetMyPants) a 50Gb process requiring a 200Gb hard drive, why not just re-start from scratch to eliminate that 45Gb of code nobody understands any more -- conceivably permanently fixing all the glitches that required all those add-ons rather than fine tuning of prior code that was too complex for anyone to want to change or understand.
03-03-2003, 08:52 PM #15
That makes sense