site critique

Please clear up validation issues before posting:

URI : http://www.fotch.org.uk/css/fotch.css
Line: 11 Context : body

I'll bet you didn't know this NG is monitored by the Validation Police..

BruceB wrote:

Please clear up validation issues before posting:
URI : http://www.fotch.org.uk/css/fotch.css
Line: 11 Context : body

I'll bet you didn't know this NG is monitored by the Validation Police..

....got our own gulag, bubba. Now, where DID I put that battery lead?

mbstevens wrote:

BruceB wrote:

Please clear up validation issues before posting:
URI : http://www.fotch.org.uk/css/fotch.css
Line: 11 Context : body

I'll bet you didn't know this NG is monitored by the Validation Police..

...got our own gulag, bubba. Now, where DID I put that battery lead?

More seriously, it seems a minimum to ask that obvious mistakes be removed
before (possibly) wasting others' time.

Paul Dean wrote:

People with a
browser of less than 750px wide will have to scroll, but who does? I
can only imagine purists who insist on having the browser in one eighth
of their screen.

What about normal people with half a 1280px screen dedicated to their
browser? If you do the calculations you'll find that they too will have
to scroll.

--
Ben M.

Paul Dean wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
Paul Dean wrote:

No need for sarcasm. If you look at the image on the front page,
it's a portrait of 30+ people; if I resize it so a 640x480 screen
won't need a scrollbar it would be ridiculous.

Why don't you make it a reasonably-sized thumbnail linking to a larger
version? An idea like that isn't exactly new, and for good reason.

Well, I think that would be appropriate if the photo was something the
user is likely to want to see in detail.

So if the detail is unwanted then what's the problem with making the
image smaller?

Its purpose however is to
help the overall first impression - the happy team - without looking
as if their attention is being unduly pointed to the team.

Now we see the conflict of interest. You suggest detail is unimportant,
and then go on to say that you want to see the individual facial
expressions of a crowd of almost 40.

Clearly you're looking for some detail from this large photograph, and
the best way to provide this inline is to use a smaller image linked to
a larger one.

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

Paul Dean wrote:

Its purpose however is to
help the overall first impression - the happy team - without looking
as if their attention is being unduly pointed to the team.

Now we see the conflict of interest. You suggest detail is unimportant,
and then go on to say that you want to see the individual facial
expressions of a crowd of almost 40.

I didn't say that.

Clearly you're looking for some detail from this large photograph, and
the best way to provide this inline is to use a smaller image linked to
a larger one.

You're wrong. My worry about having it too small is that, at a glance,
it looks silly to have an image where people's faces are the size of a
pinhead. Users don't need to see detail, but they do need to get a
certain impression.

--
Paul

Paul Dean wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:

Now we see the conflict of interest. You suggest detail is
unimportant, and then go on to say that you want to see the individual
facial expressions of a crowd of almost 40.

I didn't say that.

You may not realise it but you've been saying it all along, even now:

it looks silly to have an image where people's faces are the size of a
pinhead. Users don't need to see detail, but they do need to get a
certain impression.

Clearly you're looking for some detail from this large photograph, and
the best way to provide this inline is to use a smaller image linked to
a larger one.

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

Paul Dean wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:

Now we see the conflict of interest. You suggest detail is
unimportant, and then go on to say that you want to see the
individual facial expressions of a crowd of almost 40.

I didn't say that.

You may not realise it but you've been saying it all along, even now:

Perhaps we're using different definitions of "detail".

it looks silly to have an image where people's faces are the size of a
pinhead. Users don't need to see detail, but they do need to get a
certain impression.

Clearly you're looking for some detail from this large photograph, and
the best way to provide this inline is to use a smaller image linked to
a larger one.

Imagine if the image was so blurred (in an artistic way) that no detail
was discernable, and yet to have an overall desired design effect it had
to be within a range of particular sizes, then you'll see what I mean by
the size being important. It's /not/ to see detail, it's for the
overall effect of the page - to stop people thinking, "that looks silly"
and/or "why do they think I'd want to see a blown up picture of their
faces?"

--
Paul

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:46:01 +0200, Paul Dean
<paul_nospamplease (AT) deancentral (DOT) net> wrote:

No need for sarcasm. If you look at the image on the front page, it's
a portrait of 30+ people; if I resize it so a 640x480 screen won't
need a scrollbar it would be ridiculous.

I think you may have missed the point. The size of the photo is
perfectly reasonable: indeed I'd be inclined to make it just a little
larger.

For someone whose window is a bit narrower, losing the right-hand edge
of the photo is not a big problem. Losing the right-hand end of every
line of text *is* a problem. So don't force the text to be the same
width as the photo.

I can't really see the problem with that image - my browser takes up
half my screen and the table is entirely in the browser. People with a
browser of less than 750px wide will have to scroll, but who does?

So your screen is 1600+ pixels wide. Had you considered that a *large
majority* of users have screens smaller than that? How about PDA users?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

Paul Dean wrote:

Imagine if the image was so blurred (in an artistic way) that no detail
was discernable, and yet to have an overall desired design effect it had
to be within a range of particular sizes, then you'll see what I mean by
the size being important. It's /not/ to see detail, it's for the
overall effect of the page - to stop people thinking, "that looks silly"
and/or "why do they think I'd want to see a blown up picture of their
faces?"

I'd at least crop the image so the the lower bodies of the people in the
front row are gone. Hold a card up to the screen covering everything but
the row's shouldders and heads and see if you don't think it's a neater
image.