Posted by dorayme on 02/24/07 22:39

In article <64680$45e0b4af$d52e1f47$20305@news.chello.nl>,
"Samuel van Laere" <webklunsATgmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps i'm asking to much tonight :)
> But is there any size considered a good general size
> for thumbnails?
>

It depends to some extent on the situation. But, imo, thumbnails
the size of thumbs are almost useless, barely better than a plain
text link in giving information (as distinct to decoration) to
most people to base a decision to click or not to click.

Best is to make the thumbnails rather bigger than the traditional
tiny size so that viewers can truly decide if they want to see
bigger. It should be a size in many situations that might even
satisfy a viewer's appetitite sufficiently that they do not want
to click to bigger

<http://tvrs.org.au/gallery/gallery.html>

is the sort of thing I have in mind as being reasonable.

perhaps

<http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/pendulum/publications.html>

is a bit too big in the context.

while something like, to take something at random almost:

<http://hubblesite.org/gallery/>

on the left under heading "Hubble Images", is too small for
informed judgment.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]