Which header graphic should we use?

Which header graphic do you pefer?

  • White Sky

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Blue Sky

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • Can't Decide

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
Last I checked it was 4 percent. I don't worry about them. They're used to stuff looking strange.
Ah, now I remembered why I didn't upload a webp version: the server side (Xenforo forum software) doesn't support it yet. That seems odd, but I see Xenforo users have been asking the vendor to support it. Support for webp allegedly in the next release of the forum software.
 
Ah, now I remembered why I didn't upload a webp version: the server side (Xenforo forum software) doesn't support it yet. That seems odd, but I see Xenforo users have been asking the vendor to support it. Support for webp allegedly in the next release of the forum software.
I'm surprised by that. I'm drawing a blank on what would be different on the CMS end of things.

Maybe they're concerned about gd support for image processing. I think it has to be explicitly compiled into PHP < 8.
 
As long as we're registering graphics issues, allow me to point out that the favicon for the site is less than impressive. A few light gray lines don't really have high contrast with most backgrounds. Needs, at least, a background box.
favicon.JPG

Ron Wanttaja
 
I was looking for the one with a low wing ... :unsure:
We (actually Peter) hired a person to help us with the graphics since neither of us have any talent in that area. We did suggest a mix of high and low wing and I specifically suggested images of Cessna and Piper models, those two being well recognized makes. We got the two high wing I think because presumably there weren't any decent non-copyrighted photos on the net of Piper aircraft with a similar viewing angle to the Cessna images. The other being, if I recall correctly, a possible unbalanced look to the header. Then there is the near-midair collision it seems to depict, which is best left unmentioned. ;)
 
As long as we're registering graphics issues, allow me to point out that the favicon for the site is less than impressive. A few light gray lines don't really have high contrast with most backgrounds. Needs, at least, a background box.
View attachment 133
Ron Wanttaja

We do have two other alternates in the attached image - which one(s) do you think I should substitute? Black outline on white/transparent I presume?
 

Attachments

  • FF-Small-logos-styles-snip.PNG
    FF-Small-logos-styles-snip.PNG
    27.7 KB · Views: 87
We do have two other alternates in the attached image - which one(s) do you think I should substitute? Black outline on white/transparent I presume?
I like the white lines on the dark background, but I'd use dark green (if available in favicon) to go with the "Green Board" theme.
greenboard.jpg


Offhand, I think I'd heavy up the lines, too. Favicons are often presented in small size.
greenboard heavy.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
 
Just FYI the airplanes are both in the FAA registration database as active (coincidently the two owners both reside in Texas.) The one on the left is a Cessna 182 and the other is a Cessna 150L. We had the N numbers brushed out not because we had to but to avoid rubbing anyone the wrong way.
 
I like the white lines on the dark background, but I'd use dark green (if available in favicon) to go with the "Green Board" theme.
View attachment 138

Offhand, I think I'd heavy up the lines, too. Favicons are often presented in small size.
View attachment 139
Ron Wanttaja

I uploaded a version with the narrow lines using the same shade of green as the menu line. Tomorrow I'll upload your wide line version with the menu line color and see how it looks.
 
Back
Top