 | | Re: Blind to icons —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) I guess I should chime in here. I didn't notice it for a while myself. (...) Very nicely. (25 years ago, 30-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) Agreed! (Perhaps) unfortunately for Todd, the best solution I can see is for more small icons for the other links! :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 30-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Great!--glad you like it. BTW, here is a larger version of it, from an unfinished layout experiment last December (1998)... (URL) you think it's too big? On that page, it's 197x197 pixels and 15530 bytes. For comparison, the current CLSotW (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) I like the experiment. Easier to read, very attractive. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) It's not too big for that page. (...) Even if you don't use the black bars, the layout changes would make the CLSotW page more useful. More useful for me, anyway--I'm an infrequent visitor, so I always want to check previous winners. Steve (25 years ago, 20-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Another downside I just realized is that there's no longer any room for banner ads at the top -- not only do they look distracting below the other horizontal bars, but they also end up looking like a graphic title for the CLSotW site, which is (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Where's my banner?!? ;-) Even so, I like the new format much better! Very clean, very slick. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Blind to icons —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) White text in graphics is ok, but white fonts are unprintable, and that irritates some people alot. KL (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | White text on webpages considered harmful or safe? (was: Re: Blind to icons) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Is white text always unprintable? Whenever I print a page with text in a table with its BGCOLOR set, it comes out great. Workie: <TABLE ... BGCOLOR="#000000"><TR><TD> <FONT COLOR="#FFFFFF">foo foo foo</FONT> </TD></TR></TABLE> No workie: (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: White text on webpages considered harmful or safe? (was: Re: Blind to icons) —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | (...) Either will work if you set your printer preferences to "black and white". You may have to do this through your browser and/or your dos/windows printer settings (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: White text on webpages considered harmful or safe? (was: Re: Blind to icons) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | (...) I was thinking of the body bgcolor. I haddn't thought of the table bgcolor situation. KL (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: White text on webpages considered harmful or safe? (was: Re: Blind to icons) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) I'm pretty sure anyone who prints out a web page deserves to be irritated. At a place I used to work, it was very common for the management types to hand you a stack of paper, saying "I came across this web site I thought you should see." (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
