bastian/debyl-site
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch '7-alt-texts' into 'master'

Browse Source 
Added alt text to every image, bumped up archive page pagination

See merge request bdebyl/bdebyl-site!10
This commit is contained in:
Bastian de Byl
2020-07-13 03:52:55 +00:00
parent a4f698ee8e f83f4515c5
commit 6926e570ef
7 changed files with 58 additions and 26 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
config.yaml
View File

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ params:
description: "A random assortment of my personal projects."
# paginate of archives, tags and categories
archivePaginate: 5
archivePaginate: 20
# show 'xx Posts In Total' in archive page ?
showArchiveCount: true

16
content/post/aperture-study.md
View File

@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ deminishing returns. Simply put: it makes the image look "soft", or otherwise
out-of-focus. In this post I aim to find out find the best *acceptable* aperture
setting for a specific lens.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg" sub="f/1.7 vs. f/4.0" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg"
sub="f/1.7 vs. f/4.0"
alt="Photo comparing aperture depth-of-field of f/1.7 versus f/4.0 (sharper)" >}}
<!--more-->
# The Setup
@@ -39,7 +41,9 @@ lost at that target distance of 1 meter.
The biggest difference can be seen between the *f/1.7* and *f/4.0* shots. Note
the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg" sub="f/1.7 vs. f/4.0" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg"
sub="f/1.7 vs. f/4.0"
alt="Photo comparing aperture depth-of-field of f/1.7 versus f/4.0 (sharper)" >}}
---
@@ -48,7 +52,9 @@ At *f/2.8* and above I started noticing less increase in perceived sharpness of
the image, though the difference in comparison to *f/1.7* was still fairly
noticeable
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f28-comp.jpg" sub="f/1.7 vs f/2.8" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f17-f28-comp.jpg"
sub="f/1.7 vs f/2.8"
alt="Photo comparing aperture depth-of-field of f/1.7 versus f/2.8 (sharper)" >}}
---
@@ -58,7 +64,9 @@ difference in shutter speed, the overall difference does not seem as dramatic
from *f/2.8* to *f/4.0*. Personally, I'd say that *f/2.8* is the clear winner in
finding the best middle-ground between maximum aperture and image quality.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f28-f40-comp.jpg" sub="f/2.8 vs. f/4.0" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/aperture-study/f28-f40-comp.jpg"
sub="f/2.8 vs. f/4.0"
alt="Photo comparing aperture depth-of-field of f/2.8 versus f/4.0 (sharper)" >}}
---

6
content/post/emacs_clang_libopencm3.md
View File

@@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ With some minor dependencies, it's fairly straightforward in setting up your
Emacs workflow to include IntelliSense-like auto-completion!
{{< img src="/static/img/emacs-clang-libopencm3/header-completion.png"
sub="Header Completion" >}}
sub="Header Completion"
alt="Screenshot showing auto-completion for C header files in emacs" >}}
<!--more-->
@@ -105,7 +106,8 @@ fairly uninvolved workaround.
## Example
{{< img src="/static/img/emacs-clang-libopencm3/completion.png"
sub="Completion" >}}
sub="Completion"
alt= "Screenshot showing auto completion for C functions in emacs">}}
[^1]: [Emacs Initialization File]
(https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Init-File.html)

21
content/post/headphone-fix.md
View File

@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ tags: ["electronics"]
A colleague offered a pair of Bern Bluetooth drop-in headphones to me fore free,
with the catch being: _I had to fix them_
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7505.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7505.jpg"
alt="Photo of Bern brand headphones under magnifying glass" >}}
<!--more-->
# Don't Turn It On, Take It Apart!
@@ -28,8 +29,10 @@ right speaker put out no sound._ I checked the known-good left speaker using my
wanted to find out what to expect when troubleshooting the right channel.
{{< thumbgallery >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7506.jpg" sub="Left Speaker" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7511.jpg" sub="Right Speaker" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7506.jpg" sub="Left Speaker"
alt="Photo of oscilloscope showing working left-speaker analog signal" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7511.jpg" sub="Right Speaker"
alt="Photo of oscilloscope showing broken right-speaker analog signal" >}}
{{< /thumbgallery >}}
Knowing what to expect on the oscilloscope, I hooked up the probe to the right,
@@ -42,7 +45,8 @@ disconnected at this point in time to ease the troubleshooting process.
Lucky for me the PCB pads were labeled -- even better `SPKL+` (_left_) and
`SPKR+` (_right_) were easy to find.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7507.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7507.jpg"
alt="Photo of close-up magnified view of broken right speaker PCB" >}}
Outside of the bluetooth board hidden under the piece of tape, there's not a
whole lot going on in the circuit. It was my guess that the visible surface
@@ -57,7 +61,8 @@ which verified that to be the case.
115_) to test continuity of the circuit from the known-good and the now
known-bad speaker traces back to the `OUTL` and `OUTR` outputs of the amplifier.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7514.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7514.jpg"
alt="Photo of right speaker PCB hanging out of casing" >}}
Removing the board from the housing required a bit of finesse. I didn't want to
bother desoldering the left speaker connections to make removal easier. So, with
@@ -81,7 +86,8 @@ Using the 3.5mm mini-jack's solder pads, I found continuity to be true from the
chips left and right outputs to the conveniently accessible solder pads. _A
bodge wire was in order_..
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7515.jpg" sub="Note the bodge wire" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7515.jpg" sub="Note the bodge wire"
alt="Photo of close-up magnified view with soldered fix wire in right speaker PCB" >}}
# All's Well That Ends Well
@@ -90,7 +96,8 @@ pin to `SPKR+`. Lo and behold it was now closed-circuit! I was very happy to see
the expected waveform from the known-good left channel now also appearing on the
right channel.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7516.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7516.jpg"
alt="Photo of oscilloscope showing fixed right-speaker analog signal">}}
At this point I quickly re-soldered the wires to the speaker and enjoyed music
now coming into both ears!

6
content/post/stm32-part0.md
View File

@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ hideHeaderAndFooter: false
One of the simplest projects to get started with the STM32 microcontroller
series: turn on the lights!
{{< thumb src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part0/stm32-basic-gpio-leds.jpeg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part0/stm32-basic-gpio-leds.jpeg"
alt="Photo of STM32 discovery board with illuminated green and blue LEDs" >}}
<!--more-->
@@ -130,7 +131,8 @@ For starters, why were pins `GPIO8` and `GPIO9` on the `GPIOC` port being used?
The answer can be found after a quick review of the STM32F0 Discovery User Manual[^4]:
{{< img src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part0/stm32f0-discover-led-diagram.png"
sub="LEDs shown on circuit diagram connected to PC8 and PC9">}}
sub="LEDs shown on circuit diagram connected to PC8 and PC9"
alt="Screenshot of circuit diagram showing green and blue LED connections" >}}
The Discovery board comes with two LEDs for use by the user, tied to Port C pins
8 (blue LED), and 9 (green LED).

9
content/post/stm32-part1.md
View File

@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ LED. However, it is my belief that this leads to confusion for beginners and
only opens the door to misunderstandings. That being said, we will be using
timers and their associated GPIO ports with Alternate Function modes.
{{< img src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part1/blinky.gif" >}}
{{< img src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part1/blinky.gif"
alt="Animated picture showing alternating blinking green and blue LEDs" >}}
<!--more-->
@@ -92,7 +93,8 @@ The STM32 microcontroller's GPIO has a hardware feature allowing you to tie
certain port's pins to a different register as part of the output or input
control:
{{< img src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part1/stm32-af-diagram.png"
sub="GPIO Alternate Function Diagram" >}}
sub="GPIO Alternate Function Diagram"
alt="Screenshots of alternate function circuit diagram for the STM32F0" >}}
For accomplishing this, a few things need to happen:
@@ -110,7 +112,8 @@ For the STM32F0 we are using in this series, the Alternate Function selection
number desired is `GPIO_AF0` for use with `TIM3_CH3` (_timer 3, channel 3_) and
`TIM3_CH4` (_timer 3, channel 4_):
{{< img src="/static/img/stm32-examples/part1/stm32-af-gpiomap.png"
sub="STM32F051 Alternate Function Mapping" >}}
sub="STM32F051 Alternate Function Mapping"
alt="Screenshot of alternate function pin definition table for STM32F0" >}}
Ultimately, the code with `libopencm3` becomes the following for our use case:

24
content/post/thinkpad_usb_fix.md
View File

@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ port nearest to the SD card reader had been broken. The pad (_or bolster_) was
missing, along with 3 out of 4 pins having been completely broken off. Needless
to say this required fixing.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04781.jpg" sub="Final result" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04781.jpg"
sub="Final result"
alt="Photo showing fixed USB receptacle on ThinkPad laptop" >}}
<!--more-->
# Damage Assessment
@@ -18,7 +20,9 @@ The first step was to look at the PCB to assess how this could be, if at all,
replaced. From the outside you could see the damage done. Note the single
pin left and lack of the inner pad (_bolster?_).
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04722.jpg" sub="One pin remains" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04722.jpg"
sub="One pin remains"
alt="Photo showing one pin remaining on a damaged USB receptacle ">}}
# Measure Twice
@@ -27,8 +31,10 @@ needed to have the relevant dimensions in comparing to receptacle part drawings
of those available for sale.
{{< thumbgallery >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04714.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04718.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04714.jpg"
alt="Photo showing front side of USB receptacle on motherboard PCB" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04718.jpg"
alt="Photo showing back side of USB receptacle on motherboard PCB" >}}
{{< /thumbgallery >}}
Using generic, non-branded digital calipers I was able to get the following
@@ -65,7 +71,8 @@ unbranded digital caliper. Those values are nearly spot-on.
The part was ordered, and arrived quickly at my doorstep. Stacked on top of each
other the two receptacles matched up just as I had hoped.. **Fantastic!**
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04773.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04773.jpg"
alt="Photo showing new USB receptacle on top of damaged one for comparison" >}}
# It's not over yet
Initial attempts at desoldering the existing (_broken_) receptacle proved
@@ -90,7 +97,8 @@ the modification "process"_. Cutting and bending the pins, I was able to get it
soldered on (poorly). There wasn't much wiggle room for cleaning up the
bodged-in replacement; this will have to do.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04774.jpg" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04774.jpg"
alt="Photo showing new, undamaged USB receptacle soldered on to motherboard PCB" >}}
The part was essentially soldered as a wholly surface mount part, which it is
not. This could have future issues due to a lack of solder-terminated strain
@@ -106,7 +114,9 @@ motherboard from correctly fitting. This was quickly solved by using a Dremel
with a low-grit sanding drum and removing material off of the receptacle. The
result was acceptable, and provided a tight fitment into the laptop case.
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04775.jpg" sub="End of the journey" >}}
{{< thumb src="/static/img/thinkpad-usb-fix/DSC04775.jpg"
sub="End of the journey"
alt="Photo showing undamaged, new USB receptacle inside casing of ThinkPad laptop" >}}
[^1]: [Molex Part No. 482580002](https://www.molex.com/molex/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0482580002_IO_CONNECTORS.xml&channel=Products)
[^2]: [Digi-Key Part No. WM7087CT-ND](https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=WM7087CT-ND)