Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaehling
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011
     (9683.21)
    Variables has a navigatable Black Veil all over. I don't know if they have page spreads - only< just found the comic myself in the Webcomics Week thread - , but they'd get away with it.

    Of course, you'd need Javascript, so you'd have to compromise on the lowest common denominator thing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHEY APATHY!
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011 edited
     (9683.22)
    @ vaehling- my computer doesn't like javescript or flash much but the variables worked ok, their pages are too small

    o.k. check this (mess) out in full screen, I think the art looks best life sized...



    now imagine instead of the Neanderthal use pause button instructions in a video, it was a slideshow with the fullscreen option & a nav bar ( back/beginning/next). Could this be done with wordpress or html, am I dreaming?


    EDIT- don't really know much about html/java/flash but I want the thing to work as well as youtube does
  1.  (9683.23)
    Either in this thread or the other one Scott Beiser pointed out that solutions like the "Variables" one play hell with your ad metrics; the (web) page is only being loaded once, regardless of how many (comic) pages the reader looks at, and in this case the ads are also pretty well obscured during reading. If it were an ad-less site, well and good, but since it's an ad supported site that seems like a problem.

    Still, using that trick only for rare double-page spreads (which I think is what we were talking about) could still work.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaehling
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2011
     (9683.24)
    But that'd bring us back to the problem of disrupting the reading experience, wouldn't it? Unless the effect auto-loads with the page, which some browsers will have issues with because of the javascript thing, which brings us back to that problem.

    I like my own workaround better and better...
  2.  (9683.25)
    I think when you're talking about workarounds everyone's going to like their own trade-offs best anyhow. But Javascript is more an issue of browser settings, rather than browsers. My sites usually see less than 5% of users with Javascript disabled.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDarthmoga
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2011 edited
     (9683.26)
    WOW @ the right number, wormwood saga.
    I personally loved the zoom-in navigation of the former.

    I've had this idea since i started my recent art director gig - comics on youtube.
    Not like marvel motion comics, but more a series of panels presented to music, proper timing... like fully xecuted animatics.
    maybe a bit of animation thrown in.
    The benefit here would be youtube traffic, properly tapped.
    does something like this exist?
  3.  (9683.27)
    I think the double-page spread issue is an important one. While not necessary for online or digital viewing, it sure can be fun. The development of smaller tablets complicates this though, because the screens are so darn small. For myself, I couldn't give the double page spread up.
    • CommentAuthorTim Simmons
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011 edited
     (9683.28)
    Not like marvel motion comics, but more a series of panels presented to music, proper timing... like fully xecuted animatics.
    maybe a bit of animation thrown in.
    The benefit here would be youtube traffic, properly tapped.
    does something like this exist?


    Dean Haspiel pulled off the closest thing that I've seen to a "working" model for motion comics-- without losing the "comics" part of it and just making it "crappy animation" (which, is pretty much what I see with the majority of "big motion comic releases"-- if they even still happen)--

    You can check it out here:
    http://vimeo.com/16505667

    Even that, as one of the best I've seen, doesn't totally sell me on motion comics though.

    I did recently have an idea on motion IN comics though-- thinking of it more as Motion Panels. Small writeup on my blog-- (it's easier to link than retype and pop in the examples)-- given the comments I got, I don't think anyone else is as sold as I am.
  4.  (9683.29)
    Girl Genius (and Studio Foglio in general) is a good design.
  5.  (9683.30)
    Kind of noticed that single page splashes and cover art don't work either. (was so fixated on the double page I didn't realize the problem is worse than I thought.)
    • CommentAuthorjemmons
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2011 edited
     (9683.31)
    Print comics translated to digital are typically presented in a highly skeuomorphic format that needs zoom controls to register detail on most monitors, taking away from full page flow.


    Keep in mind that, while monitors are wider than they are tall, many users (esp. the more savvy users that consume webcomics) keep multiple, non-maximized browsers/applications open at a time. Imagine two apps side by side on the screen, and you'll realize these windows are not so different from standard comic proportions.

    But your comments on zoom controls still apply. The way I dealt with this in City of Sand was to create an entirely fluid layout. The user can zoom the comic dynamically just by resizing the browser window. It feels very intuitive (if not exactly discoverable).

    And for those who would rather bear the cross of scrolling in exchange for full-resolution images, there's still a "full screen" mode that gets out of your way and lets you enjoy the comic. All with no Flash (so it looks good on mobile)!

    Check out http://city.ofsand.com
    •  
      CommentAuthorHEY APATHY!
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2011 edited
     (9683.32)
    @ jemmons a "full screen" mode that gets out of your way and lets you enjoy the

    that's not really a full screen mode, you had my hopes up! I do like you're scrolling side bar and fades between pages ( no flash? that's pretty good everything worked smoothly)
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaehling
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2011 edited
     (9683.33)
    I like City of Sand's 'full screen' mode (as full-screen-ness goes, it's good enough for me). But the site seems pretty heavy on the javascript, because wth Noscript on, I can't even get to the full screen. Also, it all loads in one page (same url) which makes it hard to bookmark a page if you can't read it all in one session.
  6.  (9683.34)
    And for those who would rather bear the cross of scrolling in exchange for full-resolution images, there's still a "full screen" mode that gets out of your way and lets you enjoy the comic. All with no Flash (so it looks good on mobile)!

    That is pretty nice!
    The one suggestion I'd make, from a UI perspective, is to move your left/right buttons down to the bottom of your page. As I scroll down, my mouse pointer ends up on the lower half of your comic page-- which requires me to go "up and to the right" to advance the page.
    It's really minor, but if the page arrows were at the bottom of the page, I'd probably "think" about the nav less, because I'm already moving "down"--

    Again, that's a really minor nitpick-- but something you may want to consider if you're still playing around with your full screen layout.
    Other than that, stellar work!
    • CommentAuthordarrylayo
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011
     (9683.35)
    I'm sorry, I don't agree with the folks trying to adapt screen options for double-page spreads. Folded paper (magazine, book) is a different medium than computer viewer. If the work is intended for the screen, it should be written for the screen. There are inherent limitations to any choice of medium, but I think it's a wrongheaded approach to try to defeat those limitations rather than working harmoniously with the medium's constraints.

    For instance, there are differences between stage acting and screen acting. I wouldn't argue that one is better than the other. I think it would be a dangerous lost cause to attempt to release a film that had a hundred different cuts to imitate the subtle differences in nightly performances of stage actors. As an example.

    When putting comics on the screen, you have to accept that the reader's viewing device isn't going to change shape or double in size the way a magazine does when you open up a spread.

    I don't believe that I will ever want to see a webcomic that contains a two-page spread because it will either be presented in the same space as the normal pages at half the size (click? No, the surprise is dead; I've already seen the spread and at an emotionally insignificant size) or it will break the site's format (scroll? Nope, I'll click the "x" button).

    If a comic was originally presented in print and I'm just viewing it on the web (I suppose it's happened), that's one thing. Perils of translation.
    • CommentAuthorJigsy Q
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
     (9683.36)
    I like the basic simplicity of Mike Norton's Battlepug.
    It keeps the focus on the comic itself.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHEY APATHY!
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011 edited
     (9683.37)
    Battlepug is really nice( what colours and screen presence!), but the basic simplicity requires both horizintal and vertical scrolls which I found instantly distracting.

    Freakangels only scrolls down and not very far which keeps it really tight for the reader/user. I think the minimal scroll is really important in all web designs (?).
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaehling
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
     (9683.38)
    There was a small survey about that a couple of years ago that made its way around the webcomics community. Users turned out to be okay with scrolling, as long as it's only in one direction - down or sideways. (Preferrably down, because that's faster.) I can relate to that.

    'fraid I didn't keep that link, though.
  7.  (9683.39)
    @ Vaehling- sounds like sound advice. Not only do I think the down is faster, it seems to be more organized and simply easier on the brain.
  8.  (9683.40)
    If the work is intended for the screen, it should be written for the screen.


    But what if the work is intended for both? I get up to 200 pageviews each time I start a new short comic online, and the highest number I ever hit was 880 views, but the most copies I ever sold of anything was 7. As such, posting things online is simply a way of reaching a larger readership, some of which hopefully will pick up the print edition.

    For instance, there are differences between stage acting and screen acting. I wouldn't argue that one is better than the other. I think it would be a dangerous lost cause to attempt to release a film that had a hundred different cuts to imitate the subtle differences in nightly performances of stage actors. As an example.


    Subtle differences in nighly performances = subtle differences in printed copies. At least to me. So, the comparison is lost to me. Whereas other tools offered by the theatre (specific way of acting, using symbolic sets rather than actual occasion, performing entire acts or stages in one go rather than shooting in pieces) have been adapted for cinema again and again, often with a lot of success.

    Now this is totally off-topic, but when I wasa kid we used to have over here a series of theatrical performances produced for television. It was a way of fairly cheaply staging classical plays. Result? I saw a huge load of theatrical classics on the small screen (numbering at least ten times higher than the amount of my visits to an actual theatre).

    Back to the topic.

    Scrolling sideways doesn't work if you have two tiers. Having to scroll right, then left and then right again = fail.
    A website that scrolls only when you mousedrag a scrollbar but not when you use the scrollwheel = fail.
    A website that scrolls with the scrollwheel but not with the keyboard = also fail (although a lesser one because only weirdos like me like to scroll with cursor keys, haha)

    Things that work (according to my own observations):
    - Scrolling down (and only down). You do it on every single website (forum, blog, tumblr, youtube comments, etc.)
    - Navigation buttons below the page (so you dn't have to scroll up after every page... although putting them both below and above allows for easier skipping of pages).
    - Some kind of chapter/page dropdown menu for easier jumping to a desired spot.
    - Clicking the page sends you to the next page (very useful and faster than using navigation buttons).
    - cursor navigation: right, next page. left, previous page (VERY useful if you scroll with the keyboard. Often used on scanlation sites.)

    Personally, as someone with a fairly small monitor and resolution (17inch, 1024x768) I'm less annoyed by the need of scrolling than by tiny text. If I can't read the text from a 50cm distance (that's about 20 inches), I'm not going to ruin my back by hunching over the screen, sorry.

    On the other hand, once we all have fucking huge high resolution widescreen monsters in our houses, displaying a double spread on something like that will be easy.