I'm fine with the images as they are, but it's true that location images like the example picture are small enough that they're basically useless to me. I voted for larger for that reason.
That said, oh lord, please not thumbnails. Agreed that it would be a truly negative impact on the site.
Now that I'm of a certain age and my eyesight is getting worse, I prefer the larger images, so I voted for choice #2, although I'd be satisfied with choice #1 (current state), but would not be in favor of using thumbnails that require extra clicking for each image.
Don't use thumbnails!! Having to click to open every image would severely degrade the site.
Thanks - T.
I read your blog for the content not this pictures. I evenly split the reading between my laptop and phone. I could live without the overhead associate with downloading large size images that generally add little value to the blog posting itself. How many pictures of a hospital/health system do we need? My answer: none.
Perhaps if you set the thumbnails to open a new web page, you wouldn't have the lag time for a page back, you could just hit the tab and be there.
I think maybe the complaint comes from ... when you post to Twitter or FB ... and the 8mage is grainy
I hate hate hate inordinate scrolling, a new trend by the way in marketing. I yearn for the old days when you could access everything from. The home page and landing pages if major navigation links and sum.up the site super quickly. Then decide if you wanted to dig deeper into the content or.mobe on. Whatever happened to left hand margin links? . Suggest to this complainer that they increase their screen size.