Thanks for the positive comments Brian. Much appreciated. I will indeed move the links to a separate page. In fact, I might get rid of that stuff altogether. Undecided as yet.
Thanks again... Cheers Shaun Brian Walters said: > Shaun > > Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's my > interest. > > I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans > generally. > Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been scanned > from > slides and then worked over in software? > > I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it > difficult to > get decent scans. My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650 > Photo > scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much else > and I've > found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to abysmal > with > most being just OK. > > Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of the > images > and I still think they are a bit large. Is there a reason why they need > to be > that large? As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit on > the > screen without scrolling. > > The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your external > links. > At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example, > gets > taken away from your site and may not return. It might be worth > "targeting" the > external links to a separate window so that your site stays active. > > Cheers > > Brian > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Brian Walters > Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants > http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP > > > > Shaun Canning wrote: > >>Hi Gang, > >>Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too >>large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the >>second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None >>are now larger than about 250k. >> >>Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last >>time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not because >>they are crap! > > > > > > ---- Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com > >
