C-130 accident

If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...
If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

ok, agreed - bad example. But surely you get the point.

..jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
background.

Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

--
Duncan

.jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
background.

That's my issue - the idea that "blending an image into the
background" is the way web sites (should) work. With printed matter
you have full control, but web pages are not printed matter. Blending
an image into the background is usually just a nicety which should not
be =imposed on= (but rather, just suggested to) the browser.

Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

I'm quite happy to see a little white frame around an image rather
than have it blend, so long as the main part of the page respects my
background color choice, which if made is surely made with good reason.

I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
top for that matter).

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

I have no trouble whatsoever with the white around the google button.
In fact, it makes it stand out as a separate element rather than
be seamlessly and mysteriously integrated into the page, where its
function is less evident.

Web pages are not works of art, and are not supposed to be.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...
If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.


It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
top for that matter).

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

(Interesting review on Microsoft Antispyware BTW - which is why I read
it).

--
Duncan