Posted by dorayme on 05/11/06 08:37

In article <Xns97BFE3984ED9httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> 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...

I am sorry, but no. This will simply not do. It is not as if
there is some big and defined problem about what to call pics
that link. It is a matter of understanding what is happening in
what context and so describing it. "Preview" would not capture it
if the image was perfectly adequate for looking at and enjoying
or learning or whatever (even though it links to some larger file
suitable for another purpose).

I just wanted to make the point that quite big pictures cannot be
sensibly called thumbnails in all contexts where they link to
even bigger ones. It would be just as big a mistake to call them
previews. If they do link to a very high quality file for
printing, the printing software might have something that
displays a preview of how it will sit on the page and so on, here
the meaning is clearer.

There is no general problem of naming to be solved. So please
don't be impressed too easily with any straw cast your way that
appears to solve "it".

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]