OK I know I've already raised this in http://floatboxjs.com/forum/topic.php?post=523#post523 as a bit of a joke, but I've done a fair bit more thinking about it and actually think it's a logical partner to movable floatboxes - that is to say, if floatboxes are going to be movable, instinctively one expects they should be resizable too.

This becomes more than just a fancy code-bloat when you're dealing with written content, where the default size may be quite unsuitable for the amount of space on the user's monitor and the capacity to resize makes a definite difference to the user. Back when it was just images none of this was necessary, but now FBs contain content I think these have to be considered in light of the way people want to lay out their content.

And to get all the bells and whistles out the way at the same time it would be good if the resized dimensions were remembered in gallery mode in the same way the window's position should be remembered.

OK I think that's all <ducks for cover>, hope you can give it some consideration! FB already rocks; the hard part when choosing a lightbox script is finding which ones have the features you particularly need. Since my use of FB I've seen several features which make FB appeal to a wider and wider audience; it would be great to keep that going and maybe one day FB will be *the* lightbox tool to have (especially if you can compile a script with just the features you want... )

Greg

Greetings from Singapore. I tried to reply yesterday during a crashingly spectacular thunderstorm, but the interwebs went down before I could post.

Quote

maybe one day FB will be *the* lightbox tool to have

Mmm... It is my contention that FB is already the lightbox tool to have.

As for resizeability, I don't disagree with you. (Is this the same as agreeing???) Perhaps something for the idle hours of February or March.

As for selecting subsets of floatbox capabilities (aka "compiled" download), I'm not so optimistic. I've looked at this before and concluded that you could only save about 20-25% of the code size. And it would really mess up the inclusion of compressed and gzipped versions in the download package. I'll look at this again some lazy day, but may come to the same conclusion again.

Keep smiling...

Selamat Pagi! (whoops, you said Singapore not Indonesia!). Certainly for myself (and I suspect many of us here), FB is definitely the tool of choice. I guess working against it is that there are so many scripts out there, some of which have been there for a long time. FB just needs to build more of a reputation and get some more months behind it and get its name out there more. I started with Lightbox, then wanted content not just pictures; trawled comparison pages but never found FB; I ended up with lytebox as the best compromise, and as you'd know you then kidnapped me from there and I ended up here! FB has all the features I was looking for and more, I just wish I'd known about it earlier. I suspect many others will feel the same. Perhaps it's just up to us disciples to preach!

Compressed versions may not be required so much with a compiled application. I don't find it too heavy in its present form however with all these feature requests it could soon get heavy. It would be good for the programmer to have the option of the full package (perhaps the compressed full package too) or just what they want. Anyway I'll leave it with you.

Enjoy your break
Greg