site critique

Stephen Poley wrote:

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.

Thanks for that. I saw somewhere that had managed to resize a picture
within a css-driven column, which I'll try to replicate as soon as I
have a chance.

--
Paul

mbstevens wrote:

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.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

--
Paul