|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/06/06 09:10
In article
<leo-34BE31.21305605052006@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-E77FF6.14063906052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > [So I am still a lonely voice advocating bigger thumbnails or the
> > use of text links...]
>
> How big? I advocate relatively small thumbs at a marginal visually lossy
> compression with a decent title for a large number of thumbs on a single
> page. I'm still on 56k.
>
> leo
OK. for a landscape, I would say not smaller than 150px across.
But it depends on the contents. There is much to be gained and
not that much to lose with a very great number of pics in
question, to just have text links.
I favour this: no thumbnails at all, all text descriptions in a
list and the first text "link" exhibited right there big enough
(like 400px) to make it all look nice. This achieves much: the
user sees what he is to get by way of size and quality. The show
begins right there and then! The caption to the 400 on display is
be a link to even bigger and so on to each and every page.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|