Hi Marc:
Nice part of the world you live in!
Gord
On 10-Apr-08, at 5:56 PM, Marc Lawrence wrote:
> 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
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|