Hi all: For a upcoming project, I will be creating a analytic article. I would like to know if I would be able to create a dynamic presentation (so that it doesn't look generic) on the web. I have a few examples of what I would like to produce: http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/daft-punk/ http://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/reader/janelle-monae/ I'd like to know if there is an easy way for me to accomplish this style of presentation without blatantly copying the source code from Pitchfork. If you guys could help me out with finding some resources to help me achieve this (possibly some Wordpress Themes if it comes down to that) than I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much! P.S. I would also be willing to get in contact with some of you via e-mail or Skype if you are that helpful
So, if you would like to make something like that look about : jQuery Parallax effect. it's the technology used on this examples... it's easy to use and to implement on any web page or a CMS like Wordpress or Joomla. Goodluck
Hello themes4all, If I were to implement the parallax effect into a Wordpress post/page, would you recommend using a theme or just using the code in the text editor? Thanks!
You have 3 possible things : 1- you download the parallax plugin, you create your page with the content and everything on your computer, then you upload the whole thing to your wordpress website (the css, jquery scripts, codes in header, then create a page where you call all of that...) 2- Follow this tutorial : http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/simple-parallax-scrolling-technique--net-27641 to create this effect on your post or page... 3- Download a parallax wordpress theme such : http://wordpress.org/themes/parallax-effect Goodluck
Sweet! I think I'm going to either try out #1 or #2 - do you recommend any parallax plugins or do you think that it is just easier to create the effect via tutorial? Thank you!
Try creating the effect via tutorial first off, if you do not like the outcome come back here and we can talk about plugins as well
Wow, people actually saying to use the inaccessible train wreck of idiotic BS known as parallax scrolling... Some advice, if you have CONTENT OF VALUE do NOT go ape with all the goofy inaccessible "gee ain't it neat" visual BULL! All you are doing is making the page harder to use, slower to load, and an all around pain in the ass.... The two idiotic useless inaccessible train wrecks you linked to being poster children of "how not to build a website" -- no matter how many arsty fartsy type cream their panties over the "effects" and "presentation". If it's useless to end users due to being slow loading, hard to use, and making users more likely to bounce and/or bitch than bother even trying to use the page. See that "daft punk" crap page that is useless at anything less than 2560x1440... and even then is so painful to use due to it's goof assed parallax BULLSHIT I cannot fathom how/why anyone would want a page like that, much less be DUMB ENOUGH to deploy one. ESPECIALLY in the age of responsive layout and accessible design... Wow, that whole "pitchfork" site is absolutely useless crap due to it's PSD Jockey meets script-tard bull; seriously, they have traffic? REALLY? Do people even VISIT that site as anything more than a bounce?!?
Very interesting, heated notion founded only on opinion and no presentable facts. Those sites are a bit much, yeah - the Daft Punk one primarily - but surely you have numerous case studies that show that a parallax site with proper navigation, etc. converts poorly and results in higher bounces compared to a website without it in order to support your claims that you're touting as fact but are currently only opinion? Never mind that you mentioned responsive layouts, yet fail to acknowledge that parallax can easily be restrained to desktop users without the content still formatted in an easy-to-understand manner for mobile users.
I'll admit it's opinion, but it's an educated one based on 38 years of programming, a decade of professional writing (technical manuals), a decade and a half of working on websites, a proper knowledge of accessibility guidelines, and apparently being an accessibility user -- though I've never considered myself such -- just because I'm a large fonts/120dpi user running Opera 12...As opposed to the pathetically useless crippleware of Opera 15+, aka Chrome with the Opera logo slapped on it any old way) I personally find them useless; and cannot fathom how anyone could find them useful; how is at netbook/tablet sizes being only able to show 5 lines of text at 6 or 7 words per line "useful"? How is a goofy uneven scroll and graphic that doesn't actually fit or look good at any resolution useful? How do massive background images too big to even belong on websites in the first damned place make the page more useful? How does jerky broken scrolling mated to oddball content overlaps that make the page near impossible to follow useful? It's exactly the type of halfwit garbage I expect from PSD jockeys and the "gee ain't it neat" scripttard crowd; the types of dipshits who see nothing wrong with a 4 megabyte page made from five or six dozen files, a quarter that being scripting alone? Usually mated to other halfwit garbage like javascript and css frameworks? You know, the inept fools who waste tens of k of markup for every k of plaintext? (hell, in the case of most of these even 3:1 is unforgivable). As to responsive + parallax? I'd like to see that actually work -- as I've never seen it done. What I have seen is a lot of half-hearted broken attempts at it which are even less useful on my phone, handheld, netbooks, tablets AND desktops than if they had just crapped out a simple fixed width layout. ... and given my opinion of fixed width layouts :/ I've never seen this goofy parallax bull done on a website in what I would consider a useful manner; it's just more fat bloated slow useless "gee ain't it neat" bull used by people who don't know the first damned thing about semantics or accessibility. By their very nature they are reliant on screen sizes and resolutions that apparently nothing I own actually uses; sad when I run the gamut from 480x800 to 2560x1440 across some six different devices. It reeks from top to bottom of the same type of "accessibility, what's that?" garbage you get from the dumbasses who dick around in Photoshop before they even have semantic markup of their content or a reasonable facsimile, much less working layouts. Prove me wrong, got a link to one that doesn't get down on it's knees to pucker up behind the proverbial equine of short stature? Gimme an example of the 'best' of them, then let's see just how badly it ignores semantics, accessibility, usability, or just plain sane and rational development.
wiwwwwwwwwwww, the spotify website use Parallax Effect so that mean they are Un-professional... You gave your Opinion but that can be right or Wrong.. now the main subject is that our friend wanted to get the same effect... it's his own choice so you don't had to give us a Speech about Parallax.. at least Big companies use it on them websites because it's give a new user experience.. plus you said : "As to responsive + parallax? I'd like to see that actually work -- as I've never seen it done. " i said Spotify use it and Parallax is 100% Responsive... you can check the Coolkitten Plugin... So as i said, our friend need to make something similar to the effect he like, so we gave the Parallax effect.. if you have another solution so give it......
Most certainly they are... Since their page refuses to load style or images in my browser of choice (opera), in FF it's a buggy broken unnavigable useless mess that, as I mentioned before about parallax seems bound and determined to spread the actual content of the page out so much you can't actually find anything, and of course in chrome it's somewhere between those two extremes. It's EXACTLY what I meant by developers who see nothing wrong with a 2 MEGABYTE pageload broken into 80 separate files, some 675k of that in 16 files being script-tardery ALONE... all to deliver 1.26k of ACTUAL content; said actual content (the TEXT) spread out over some 12 pages of scrolling at 1920x1080 and two dozen pages at netbook sizes... Nothing like that minute plus pageload for 1.26k of text and no images of value; this is useful HOW exactly? Under the hood it's the typical "I can haz intarnets" html 5 garbage that again proves the target audience for HTML 5 are the folks who never moved past HTML 3.2, and were slapping 4 tranny and now 5 lip-service around it, and in general reeks of developer ineptitude of the highest order with it's gibberish use of numbered headings, endless pointless DIV and classes for NOTHING reeking of "inheritance, what's that?"... It's just another poster child for everything wrong with the "gee ain't it neat" artsy-fartsy approach to web development. They most certainly would NEVER have me as a user. I see someone running off a cliff I'm going to warn them "hey, there's a cliff over there" -- I see someone walking down the train tracks when you can actually hear the train coming, I'm gonna shove them off the tracks. This namby pamby limp wristed "go ahead and crap all over your own website" attitude (typically mated to the whole garbage "If you can't say anything nice" attitude) does nothing to actually help anyone... or as George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." No, it's a buggy broken inaccessible slow loading train wreck of ineptitude that's probably costing them four times as much to host as need be, is near impossible to maintain, and if that's their idea of "responsive" they need to go back and learn what responsive means. Again, a poster child for how NOT to build a website, and once again would have me asking "really? People USE that site?!?" -- though if they have content of value people actually want, most just accept "that's just how the site is" and put up with all sorts of garbage hoops that they shouldn't actually have to put up with... or they just bounce. I'm firmly in the latter camp. Usually when "big companies" go with stuff like this, it's because the suits writing the paychecks don't know enough about websites to greenlight anything, and are more impressed by flash than substance. You know, the types who assume they can get sound technical advice from the pages of Forbes; which is akin to trying to get sound financial advice from the pages of Popular Electronics. The only way to fight this level of ignorance is by pointing out "HEY DIPSHIT!", and then appealing to their wallets. You know, the EXACT SAME ignorant fools who six to eight years ago were crapping out entire websites built in nothing but flash? That's basically what we're talking about as from an accessibility and usability standpoint, it's more of the same useless asshattery. Same crap, different methodology; It's the same dance, just a different tune.
so the conclusion of all what you said and to be brief : for YOU, the parallax effect or any other similar effect is a CRAP and USELESS. It's your point of view and i agree with that, i personally don't see my self creating a website this way, But still others who like that kind of style, it's new and it's used more and more...
My point being that just because all the other lemmings are running Just because something is popular doesn't make it good -- see Whiney Houston, Justin Beiber, HTML 5, jQuery... When something is flying in the face of accessibility norms and results in websites that by definition are inaccessible bloated slow train wrecks, we shouldn't shrug our shoulders and say "fine, go ahead and do it." -- and you'll notice most of what I said above for problems are true and supported by fact; these facts are what formed my opinion. ... and anyone who doesn't know the facts about accessibility guidelines like the WCAG which support all my above arguments, or practical page limits for size and performance, or efficiency of content delivery learned in professional writing classes; well, to be frank, don't know enough to be flapping their gums on the subject or making rational choices about building a website. As I often say, no matter how pretty it is, if it's useless to even a fraction of your potential end users, what good is it?
it's a nice Logic and well said but you know that we live in a World of "Follow Me I Follow You" ( a little wink to the ones you Quoted me About ) You give your opinion by a Technical and programming View, but All don't see it with the same Eye... Just like you said : Justin Baiber is a Piece of Shiiiit but there is a million who listen to... Flash is too Slow but still people use it... and so on...
Thank you for your fantastic reasoning and opinion - I appreciate your experience in this field. While I see where you're coming from, the site I eventually ended up making turned out to be up to my standards, and this is just going to be a one time project. For this project, I am only going to use this parallax effect for aesthetic pleasure (because the article is going to be printed out for the main presentation) and I don't intend to use this for anything else. I would like to hear what you would recommend me to use instead of the parallax effect. I would also like to include images. Thank you!