Delirium wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Delirium wrote:
I'm not sure I can follow you. Why is a 100px thumbnail more annoying than a 350px thumbnail if the full-size picture is >800px anyway?
Well, mostly because in the 100px thumbnail you can't actually *see* anything. =]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anything". Certainly you can see whether the picture depicts a person, a building, a bridge, or whatever. Together with the thumbnail caption, it should give you an idea of what it is (e.g. "Alan Turing", "Golden Gate Bridge", "UN Headquarters", etc.). So if you're interested in it, you click it to see the big picture.
Yeah, I hadn't really thought of that. That serves a different function then. In the 350px case it serves the function of an accompanying image illustrating the article, which you could optionally click on to get a much higher-quality image if you desired, but in most cases don't need to unless you have a particular interest in that picture's contents. In the 100px case you pretty much have to click on it if you really want to see it.
Well, most of the images are 200px, and it seems that the thumbnail feature uses about 200px as a default. So let's talk about that, rather than 100px which I guess is indeed quite small. Is 200px large enough for you? I can certainly see the pictures of the UN Headquarters well enough at that size.
Timwi