"I wanted to use jQuery UI but the docs site was down" :-) At the end of the day, I don't think potential consumers of plugin(s) should be too concerned whether there's an additional few KB of script loaded on a page which duplicates a functionality already available in another loaded library. Not as concerned as they should be about how the end-user experience is, especially when it's all running together.
In other words, I would be concerned if there was a performance degradation to using both. Absent that, I would evaluate on end-user factors, or other developer concerns, if any. This is what I was saying to Jose...which one you should use ought to be based on which one does what you want it to do better, and then think about things like ease-of-implementation. In my view, the spectre of bandwidth or memory efficiency is not an issue on this scale per se. I'm eager to see a solid demo of cropping using the UI libraries. Then I'd like to see one with all the same interface features (dragging from edges, animated ant-lines, etc). I'm not saying all those features are necessary for a cropping tool, or even desirable to everyone...I'm just saying, we've got to be able to compare apples to apples. Regardless of bells and whistles, I think this type of interface is valuable now and will be more valuable over time as more sites implement more advanced interfaces and features. UI should have something better than that existing demo. I'm a big proponent of re-use, so I really appreciate this discussion about the UI library. I am more motivated to go investigate how I could utilize it here. Though I would expect that UI generally has everything over my engine in terms of features and design, I have a very specific use and it may be one case where the extra few kilobytes of homebrew engine actually beats the performance overhead of a bigger library, I don't know. But, I do plan to do some experiments in the lab... Maybe when that docs site comes back up! :-) Thanks again, RDW et al. -Kelly On Sep 18, 3:35 am, "Richard D. Worth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, both do. > > JCrop has an aspectRatio option. You specify a decimal, or a ratio (16 / 9 > for wide, or 1.0 for square). See > > http://deepliquid.com/content/Jcrop_Manual.html#Setting_Options > > jQuery UI Resizables has a similar option (same key - aspectRatio). If > specified as a boolean/true it will maintain the original aspect ratio. Or > you can specify it as a number. Also if the aspectRatio option is not set, > you can hold the shift-key down while resizing and a square ratio will be > enforced. See > > http://docs.jquery.com/UI/Resizables/resizable#options(click on the options > tab) > > - Richard > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Sam Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Please forgive me if this has been raised before (I may have missed it) > > but do either of these plugins have a "contrained aspect ratio" feature > > > 2008/9/17 Richard D. Worth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Thanks Richard W. And thanks to everyone who has commented. > >>> I am glad that most of the issues raised have been purely > >>> philosophical. :) > > >>> Jose, please use whatever plugin you feel is best suited for you > >>> needs. > >>> The whole purpose of a plugin is you don't need to worry about what's > >>> inside. > >>> If you have a conviction that you want to use jQuery UI somewhere, > >>> please do. > > >> Both good points. > > >>> I've seen that jQuery UI-based cropping demo and frankly it's broken. > >>> I don't think that's jQuery UI's fault, but it does not make a very > >>> compelling demo. > >>> Nor does the demo include documentation, downloads, or anything else I > >>> can see. > > >> Agreed. Though I didn't author that demo, I've been meaning to fix it up > >> for some time. Seeing what you've done has re-inspired me. > > >>> Surely jQuery UI could have been used, but I was not/am not familiar > >>> enough with it. > >>> Therefore, I cannot comment if it would actually benefit more than my > >>> coding time. > >>> I also wanted to minimize the codebase and dependencies. > > >>> I do plan to experiment with the UI libraries. If they prove > >>> beneficial, a future release may use it. > >>> Or, I may incorporate some of UI's optimizations in my own code, if > >>> applicable. > > >> Either way, :-) > > >>> As with the naming (e.g. Jcrop vs. jCrop), these are issues I > >>> considered a lot. > >>> It's very possible that I made some wrong choices. > > >>> This is the first time I've ever seen lack of a dependency as a > >>> detriment to someone. > > >> If someone is already using jQuery UI it's a bit reversed, as the > >> duplication/dependence on additional code would be coming from your plugin, > >> not the other way around. Of course it goes further than just code size. > >> Not > >> to say there's no place for Jcrop. There will always be a place for > >> stand-alone plugins. But jQuery UI could really benefit from having > >> available such a stellar image crop plugin as well. > > >> I'll take a crack at merging some bits of what you've done with what > >> jQuery UI has. We'll see where it lands us. As I said, I'd been meaning to > >> do something like this anyway, and you've done a lot of really great and > >> hard work. So, thanks :) > > >> - Richard
