On 23/09/12 20:36, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Three things about that amazing calender:
1 The description could do with being just slightly bigger for those of
us with less than perfect eyesight
+1. It is barely readable at 1:1. It doesn't need to be big, but neither
2 Where is the attribution to the photographers? There
is a final page
which quotes the file names and repeats the license 12 times, but the
photographers are unnamed, or are those strange //s a placeholder that
will be replaced with their names.
The names are at the left of "CC-BY-SA 3.0" in that last page.
No idea what those // are for. For titles maybe, but I don't know why
they wouldn't have been included.
In my opinion the author and CC-BY-SA 3.0 could also be present at the
image page. The last page could contain and a link to the each
description page in addition to the names and CC-BY-SA 3.0
A link to what the CC-BY-SA 3.0 is, would also be good (remember that