Wedge
Public area => The Pub => Off-topic => Topic started by: Dragooon on December 24th, 2010, 12:28 PM
-
I'm looking for a nice and feature-full yet light(< 35KB uncompressed) lightbox for jQuery. Anyone got ideas?
-
ColorBox seems to be the best according to my tests. It can also be turned into a draggable component.
Also, PrettyPhoto is among the lightboxes I'm planning to evaluate, along with YoxView (less interested with this one though.)
-
The problem is I need a thumbstrip(Similar to what Highslide does) but Highslide is too fat. I plan on replacing 56KB of uncompressed JS(jQ.ui.dialog and jQ.fancybox) with whatever I find most similar and better in terms of features.
-
Dunno then.
-
You gotta be F***ing kidding me..of all the jQ lightboxes the only one which implements thumbstrip is PrettyPhoto and that too is very ugly. *me goes to code his own*. Anyone wants? :P
-
Very ugly? I don't know what you want but I find it very nice...
-
Very ugly? I don't know what you want but I find it very nice...
-
Seems better than it in every respect, except for the lack of draggable...?
-
I ended up using highslide(Replaced jquery ui dialog and fancybox with it), I couldn't find a better alternative(My JS size remained more or less the same after gzipping and compression using google closure).
-
The one thing with Highslide is the licensing is a bit of a pain, they actively discourage anyone wanting to pay for commercial licences in favour of their free options.
-
I don't think I follow, why would highslide discourage someone to pay to them and favor free things?
-
Well, back when I was working on SimpleDesk, I approached them about getting a commercial licence for SD for its attachments, because I figured anyone using SimpleDesk, strong chance it's for something vaguely commercial which doesn't fall under their free licence.
So I asked them how I'd go about paying for a licence to distribute HS with SD, suitably for commercial uses - and they told me that it wasn't necessary and that all I had to do was make it clear at point of use that it wasn't free for commercial use (like Aeva does)
-
So you wanted an unlimited commercial license whereas they told you to not do that and instead let it be webmaster's responsibility? I actually prefer the latter option since you save your money(I see them billing quite a good amount since they can't be sure on how many sites your software will be used).
-
Point is, they didn't even mention it that way (even though the unlimited commercial licence seems to be $179)
-
Yeah, you could've taken the commercial unlimited license.
-
Let me explain what's going on with them. This isn't "official" but what I could figure out during my years of using Highslide.
Earlier they used to sell unlimited licenses for inclusion in software, like SMF Gallery Pro does -- meaning anyone owning the software could use it. However, it's pretty complicated because if you use Highslide directly without using the software it was included it, it might be argued that you're using it outside of their license rights.
So basically, they'd rather have "big" software include the library, AND specify it's not free for commercial use -- like we did in AeMe. Because of this, anyone using the library for commercial reason WILL be forced to purchase a license, whatever happens.
So that's it: they'd rather sell plenty of $30 licenses than a single unlimited $180 license with everyone thinking they're free to use it, even outside of the license boundaries.
If I may, I'd say it makes sense, but they should be clearer about it. It's in their interest to be distributed, and used, as widely as possible. The license will be broken by many commercial websites, but their exposure will be greater and thus it'll help their sales.
Problem is, I don't give a damn about that. It was okay for AeMe which to me was in the end a niche product (even though it ended up being the best known SMF package), but it's not something I can consider for Wedge, which I'd really like to see become a suitable alternative to not only SMF, but also the commercial competition. And I don't see the point of telling people that "they need to pay something" at some point. No. I'd rather they donate money to us than to a software component we've been using and that can easily be replaced with another solution.
JW Player is also an issue in itself, but the issue is more likely on THEIR side -- i.e. they switched from a very free license to something more closed, but didn't consider the legal issues of it, and in the end I think it's just a way for them to make some pocket money, like I did when I renamed Foxy! to AeMe2: there's no master plan, they're just trying to entice more people into buying a commercial version or something. Using the watermark-free version is within the limits of their license rights. If anyone wants to double check, I'm okay with that. (And yes I really like JW Player -- not for the player itself, but for the spectrum analyzer. You know, the animations when I'm playing an MP3. It's not a core component, it's an external plugin.)
-
Highslide seemed like the best option when we were including it(It was your idea I think, AFAIK I was inclined to make one myself and I failed laughably) but its licensing is kind of crappy, I mean it doesn't specify that if we buy the Commercial Unlimited license and distribute highslide with a software that may or may not be used for commercial purposes, what'd happen of highslide since it doesn't stop the user of the software to take highslide from the software and use it for themselves.
I've been analyzing the features of highslide and it doesn't seem that kind of hard to code one for myself(I'm inclined to do so not only because of their crappy license, but because it is 70KB and gzips to 20KB....wut?!), only problem being draggable and droppable since jQuery's plugins for them are very beefy.
-
I ended up ditching highslide in favor of fancybox(Again)....:P
-
Not a big fan of that one... Why not Colorbox, then?
-
Not a big fan of that one... Why not Colorbox, then?
-
ColorBox uses images, really? Hmm... I guess I'm not fond of that, either. I thought it'd rely only on CSS3.
Will still look into all of this when time comes.