Posted by Neredbojias on 05/10/06 04:48

To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97BE1E7309955httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> A web page thumbnail, to me, is simply a representation of content,
>> usually more detailed content, to which it is linked. Size doesn't
>> matter, it's the quality of being a token or symbol that counts.
>> Feel free to disagree, but that is how _I_ interpret the term.
>
> Size and context matter. If you have just one pic on a page which
> is quite big (say 800 x 400) and it links to an even bigger one
> (for printing or really huge or high defn monitors), it is not a
> thumbnail. Thumbnails are small pics about the size of thumbs
> (and there is some leeway here, I have already admired your
> robust implementation of this to some extent) on a page that link
> to bigger ones that can be seen more clearly.

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.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Back to original message]