Well certainly not meaning to be offensive or aggressive, just talking plainly.
Don't want to rake it all up, but just have a couple of comments:
a) Broadsheet (and all) newspapers are dying. However, they DO contain pictures, remarkably. Admittedly i saw a copy of a 1903 Times that had few pictures, but yesterday's Telegraph had loads! In colour (shock). Imagine the duck house, without a picture of the duckhouse?
b) To use "links" to pictures is just crazy, as a picture is a picture. Thumbnails are a better alternative, especially if a bit of javascript is used to enlarge.
c) You have to think of EVERYONE who may want to visit and use the forum, not just HJ rejects (sorry couldn't resist that :). People must admit that MOST web users prefer to see some pictures, as they are worth 1,000 words.
I'm not suggesting repeated massive Subaru Imprezas with naked girls (hmmm) but I am suggesting that reasonably small thumbnails to illustrate a point - about the width of the "post message" button and about 3 times as tall (or 100 x 70px for the rest of us) - with a mouse over enlargement for you older members :))) may actually (shock horror) massively improve the user experience.
I take it members under 60 are welcome??? :)))
Stop taking offence. And bandwidth is NOT an issue. We are in 2010.
Ling
Last edited by: LINGsCARS on Tue 23 Feb 10 at 18:24
|
