ok, pease see http://wqa.wikidot.com/csstesting:gallery
i have been toiling trying to find a better way for us to display images.
i'll be adding size variables to the templates when i write them so all images per type (sizes will differ from helm to class for example) will be identical height. the width will scale effectively too. that will make for smooth work when we roll out the image dimensions. if a pic is too small it will be blown up and blurr, but an image too big will just be shrunk and be alright.
anyways, what i wants ur opinions on is what ya see on that page. what i wanted to do was invoke the "gallery" function. problem is u can only use that on pages where the images are embedded, not linked. we just dont have the capacity to hold all our images on the wiki. i have a folder on my pc created in july containing pics for the wiki an its neally 100mb in size. a wiki like our can only hold 300mb. if we did use it, it wudn't last. so then it came down to me trying to implement what i wanted from the gallery, namely the nifty lightbox feature. that took me thru trying to use css, an alien idea to me. and thats what we have on that page.
the top image does not use css. it steals the functionality in the wiki for when u hover over someone's avatar. it is unfortunately complex on code but shud be compatible with the infobox templates. if u notice this box actually hovers over the page. i don't think i can remove the link from it, however i can tell it to link anywhere (the image location makes sense). since this doesn't use css it can be implemented easily and without an admin.
the bottom 2 both use css. the code is more basic but will not work without doing some stuff in the admin panel. it too will be compatible with infobox templates. this on as appose to the above does not float over the page, it rather simply re-sizes the image, and pushes everything else out of the way. it does however load faster and doesn't "stick" in place like the above sometimes can.
for ease of discussion call them "with css" and "without css".
i like both. i prefer without css.
armor is a bad example, imagine these in use for things like locations.