I think thumbnail images might improve the browsing experience, even if they're mildly antithetical to a site that highlights the power of html5/css3/js.
Anyway, very useful compilation and well done - definitely bookmarked!
Thanks! I wouldn't mind seeing a list of fast loading pages like this that have images + functionality that aren't mostly text. There's only so much you can do if your design requires large photos or a video in the header though.
That's nice, but the thumbnails appear to be of the site layouts, rather than thumbnail metadata, which would seem to make them less than useful since it's not contextually relevant. Most of what's visible is the header of the page (which is repeated in the link) and some thumbnails are even blank.
That said, having tried to make a HN clone that did use metadata for thumbnails, even that seemed not to add value in most cases. Turning a URL into a useful thumbnail seems to be kind of a hard problem.
I like this. It got me to thinking about creating a text-only version of my website, but so much of what I publish relies on pictures that without them there wouldn't be a whole lot of interest left.
I like how the results layout. They need to work on finding more relevant thumbnails. The thumbnail shown for my own website is completely unrelated to me.
I feel like the bombard-the-reader-with-images approach could be an artifact of thinking from the time when HTML images were still a novelty, simply because no one else had done it before. (I have absolutely no data to back this up though).
Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly the kind of detailed feedback we were hoping for.
A revised landing page is in the works. You gave us a ton more to think about :)
RE: squares. We do create square thumbnails (it lets us fit a lot more on a page, especially at 1024x768). Clicking the thumbnails goes to a larger, correctly aspected version, and of course there's the original photo data as well.
thanks! the thumbnail trend has gotten really, really bad. any insight into why creators are hopping on the bandwagon? is there data they have access to which suggests switching to this type of thumbnail will increase engagement?
Thanks for open sourcing this! Really appreciate the effort that went into this.
Just curious though, I'm wondering from a usability viewpoint. Is this a good thing to have on a website? Are there cases where it helps to present the content in a better fashion than without?
I use image thumbnails for my blog posts as well but they don't even show up in the article. Instead when the article is linked to on twitter or a message the thumbnail will show up. That's to say that this is pretty awesome and very valuable for a blog even if not used for cringy pop-gif stuff in the article.
For certain things, thumbnails make sense: online, articles about photography, etc. But for regular articles, instead of figuring out how to extract thumbnails, we should realize that in most cases, the article would be highly improved by a lack of thumbnail.
There's a trend lately to illustrate low-quality content with low-quality stock pictures (most likely acquired from a Google Image search without a proper license.) For an example, just look at TechCrunch or Pando. We should strive to rid the internet of this plague.
Good articles and real journalism have standards when it comes to illustration. Open up nytimes.com and look at what's illustrated with photos versus illustrations versus nothing.
How about this classifieds website, http://www.HouseOfNothing.com ? This website predated Pinterest. So it is not a copy-cat. It uses five column image thumbnails display, and it keeps them on the same level so the visitors do not get disoriented when they land on the site. The front page limits the display to 10 rows. It does not automatically extend itself to create an infitite flow of images.. Would it fix some of the problems mentioned in the article?
reply