Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> writes:
I second that.
Personally I would not display the picture on the description page.
Thanks, yes, but a small picture (300x225px) is acceptable.
And yes, an announce would be nice.
;)
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
It's a good thing that our image pages now behave
as expected: click a
picture, get a larger version.
Yes, from this POV the interface is okay.
But you are correct to point out that for very large
images, this
makes quickly checking the description text more difficult. This will
become worse as we add more very-high-resolution images, which we
should given our goal to release a print version.
Yes, that's the point.
A better solution to the problem is to add a small
(i)nfo icon next to the
magnifying glass which views the image page with a &showpicture=no
parameter, not displaying the zoomed version.
IMO, the default setting should be &showpicture=small and I am not sure
whether there is enough space for both these icon, the magnifying glass
and the (i)nfo icon - maybe the magnifying glass is superfluous since
the user can click on the image to achieve the same goal.
In the long term, we may also want to support two zoom
levels for very
large images.
Probably - as long as I am not connected via DSL I don't want to be
bombed with 24MB images.
--
| ,__o
| _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
