Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:At 18:19 04.06.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Well, it is 88x31, like you asked. It's too long, that's why it looks > small when compressed to 88 pixels. That's also why I created the other > one, which makes the modperl text bigger.
True. But you lost the cogs in the bigger one. At least I don't see them.
:-) They are both 88x31. However, I removed the cogs in the second one to make the "modperl" text bigger! Should I maybe make a button that is bigger but includes both cogs and text?
My point was that we aren't really allowed to change the logo. And removing half of it, is definitely changing the logo.
Hmm. It's hardly chaning it in a bad way. I know, you ca give me many counter-examples, but the logo still stays the same here. We just remove the part which isn't necessarily useful for the button.
Anyway, should I go ahead with a bigger version? (the others are bigger)
I'm still working on this. The HTML is pretty generic (only filename, width and height changes -- and width and height aren't really needed either), so that can go below the table. I'll probably go with the table, but with thumbnails for the graphics, linked to the bigger one.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea, since the user won't have a complete feeling on how it's going to look when selecting which banner to use. It helps to see them all together on one page using real size. May be separating buttons and banners on different pages?
Hmm, separating buttons won't help. The problem with having them real-size is that there is a lot of additional information to include (alternative versions, and description) which won't fit in then.
-- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
