And to videography, i quite agree, but then again there is something to be said for originality. That, and i am not a fan of client-side reliant code. Jalbum seems to be javascript based, and the problem with that is the albums very function depends on the clients settings, browser and browser version. So if the viewer has an outdated browser, a browser that doesn`t execute javascript, an anti-virisus suite that disables it, or perhaps they have it turned off by choice... then the album will not even function. So, its more of a personal preference of mine to only use server-side code for important functions, because you`re guraunteed to have it working no matter the client-side specifics. That and the benefit of programming it yourself is you then have 100% complete freedom for future custimization. But to be honest, you don`t need to worry about me reinventing the wheel, it shouldn`t take more than a few hours to pumpout some basic gallery code.
I still haven`t had time to implement some of the changes suggested here, i will be doing that soon (I hope

).
However, i thought i`d give an update to explain my above quoted point further. I had only recently installed analytics on my site, so i had to wait to get enough data. But looking at the results i see that 10% doesn`t have javascript enabled! If i were to implement a system that relies on javascript (like a gallery), that means that at this point in time it wouldn`t have even worked for 10% of the visitors. Definitely illustrates why you need to examine your site users before implementing certain technologies.
p.s. videography, just wanted to tell you that i do appreciate your suggestion, so don`t take it that way. Just figured i`d use this to illustrate the idea of being careful about implementing features that may not be supported.
Jarrod19376/24/2009 6:09 PM