Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: A question regarding my online photo gallery

Subject: [OM] Re: A question regarding my online photo gallery
From: Marc Lawrence <montsnmags@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:56:50 +1000
Timpe, Jim wrote:
> A very quick first impression.... The choice of text color vs.
> background color renders much of the text right difficult for
 > me to read, at least on my 17" sceptre work monitor.  Not
 > enough contrast for my aging, tiring eyes to comfortably
 > discriminate.

I'm trying to attract a younger crowd. ;-)

Seriously, thanks (and to Chuck and others who mention this). The 
theme's default is this text size/colour combination, but the advantage 
of it is that it's meant to be fully customisable. I'll do that first.

Chris Barker wrote:
 > ...This one:
 >
 > http://www.parknmeter.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=58
 >
 > looked very slightly warmer on my Mac in Firefox (v3 beta, an
 > excellent browser for the Mac) than in Safari (which will be corrected
 > for your lightspace)..  The other one, the sunset out to sea, looked
 > exactly the same.

Okay, thanks for that, and the rest.

 > The iMac will be a huge pleasure to use (and do ask if anything is
 > overly confusing or you need guidance; there are of course several
 > users on the List).

Here's hoping. It's more of a "Change is as good as a holiday" thing for 
me - as long as an OS gets the hell out of my way, I'm happy to make 
choices on the basis of which has the prettiest colours (sometimes the 
same way I pick sports teams to pretend to care about).

Bob Whitmire wrote:
 > I can't say about the differences in appearance. I just know stuff
 > looks different on the web than it does in print, and it looks
 > different on different monitors, unless all owners are anal about
 > their calibration, and maybe use exactly the same calibrator. For me,
 > the decision has been to mutter and mumble and spew curses and poxes
 > on all their houses, and continue to use Adobe color space and treat
 > everything as though it's going to be a print.

Well, you're no bloody help, are you? ;)

 > But I second the opinion of others that the type is near-impossible
 > to read. How are people going to know about your ambivalence to
 > underwear if they can't separate the words from the background?

You seemed to manage, if you got what was probably the most important 
point (about derps) that was included in the rambling crap on the front 
page. :D  Your point is well taken, and that it agrees with that of 
others didn't hurt either.

 > And, oh yeah, I like the first dog pic the best.

Truthfully, so do I. It's my favourite portrait photo, but as it's of 
the late Monty - the best dog ever - my bias is impossible to avoid. Thanks.

Bill Pearce wrote:
 > Bob,
 > Don't really care about your stand on underwear.

Well, that's pretty narrow-minded of you (probably a boxer-wearer) ;)

 > I can bet, however, that you ARE wearing bifocals if you can read
 > the teensie type as it appears on  my screen. The 80% black type
 > on 100% black is a challenge, too.

Okay, okay, I get it! I'll fix it! Sheesh, I didn't ask for this 
criticism, did I? What? I did? Bugger.

Thanks all. I'll fix up the whole text thing (size, colour). I'm still 
not completely clear how to minimise the differences in images on 
different monitors, but my confusion is on a higher plane now. ;)

Cheers,
Marc
Noosa Heads, Oz

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz