|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 05/11/06 08:22
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:
>> I will concede that there could be scenarios (such as the one you
>> illustrated) wherein calling the linker image a "thumbnail" might be
>> a stretch, but other than that, shall we agree to disagree? In all
>> honesty, I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just
>> seems to be a convenient way to term such images.
>
> It is not that I mind about what you call what. It is that the
> nature of the object being called seems to be misunderstood. The
> essential feature of a thumbnail is that it is but a slightly
> informative link to 'the real thing' as it were. When you start
> calling pics that are pretty adequate in themselves thumbnails
> even though the website maker has provided further
> 'enhancements', imo, you are starting to lose site of the main
> idea.
>
> It is like calling someone's home or car, a "first" home or car
> because there are just so much better ones that folk seem to
> manage to get or want as they live on... even when it might be
> some poor sod's 8th!
>
> [yeah, ok, I am thinking of my car... :)]
I just got a great idea! How about if we call large thumbnails "previews"
to prevent any disharmonious associational confusion with the main image?
This would be a discrete term used to indicate the image you see is more
than a thumb but less than the full-fledged image/content it links to.
Don't know why I didn't think of this before...
--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|