I don't know. To me it just seems very presumptuous to think that people *want* to see and appreciate every image in your album. Thumbs allow them to pick and choose instead of having the whole thing forced on them. They tend to move on to more amenable sites. ~G~ Regards, Gavyn Aaron Photographer/Artist OutBC Productions (Ph) 832-794-1671 (E-Mail) GavynAaron@xxxxxxxxx (Web Site) http://www.OutBC.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis Nature Photography" <JBDavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:55 PM Subject: Re: My new web site - at last... > "Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: > > >I think the presentation of thumbs is a very good thing. I wouldn't > >get rid of them. They really enable to viewer to decide how much > >time to spend in an "album" > > I would always argue against thumbs. I feel they allow people to click > too quickly through your albums. However, displaying only one image at > a time does this as well, but I feel the thumb being there entices a > person to click on it before fully appreciating the last image. And > it's not needed, so why detract from the main image viewed. > > I'm very curious as to what others think of thumbs vs. my method of > fully showing the gallery from top to bottom. I know my way takes > longer to load, but I like the idea of the viewer being able to scroll > back up or down to view again images. Without any hurry. > > example: http://jimdavis.oberro.com/html/new_stuff4.html > > Comments on my method vs. one at a time galleries appreciated. > >
