Re: image and other folders

Hi Shelley!

I have built a couple of sites just the size you are speaking of. Both
sites have quite a few images; one has 20 photos, both thumbnail and larger
sizes, another has over 30 with thumbnails and matching larger sizes, plus
quite a few graphic images for navigation, background, etc. The largest
site I have done is 38 pages. I have always had the html documents in the
document root, and all images are in a sub-directory of that directory,
with all of the image src's pointed to through relative pathnames; e.g.

<.img src="./images/picture1.jpg" +attributes>

For small web sites, this is probably a workable way to do it. But, should
the site grow, or if you ever build a site that has oodles of pages and
images, then you might want to have a few more sub-directories; e.g.

<.image src="./images/navbar1.gif +attributes>,
<.image src="./photos/photo1.jpg +attributes>, etc.

I guess it is up to each designer to decide where the dividing line is
between a "small" site and a "large" site. I think a good rule of thumb is
that if you start getting lost finding files, then you probably need to
break it down some more and use several sub-directories for the sake of
organization.

HTH,

Mike

At 11:22 AM 9/22/00 -0700, Shelley Watson wrote:
>Greetings again
>
>	It's Opinion Time! - I'm pondering the necessity of putting
>images in a folder to keep them grouped together and separate
>from the html files for uploading to a website.  These are not
>large websites that I'm working on - just 11 and 14 pages for the
>two I'm thinking about.  For some it just might be a matter of
>personal preference but I'd like to hear some feedback on the
>whys and wherefores and any possible problems.
>
>Thanks
>
>Shelley
>shelleyw(at)home.com
>
>

Michael Jon Muehlendorf
Freedom Systems Group
email: mailto:coyote(at)scenic-bluffs.com
www: http://www.scenic-bluffs.com/fsg/

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA