ignatios on 1/11/2003 at 18:44
I like #3 because it follows the same formatting scheme as our current (well, the old) quotes. It's just smaller.
I think Starreh's idea is best though.
*Zaccheus* on 2/11/2003 at 08:56
Me too likes #2.
:thumb:
Jenesis on 2/11/2003 at 09:28
I like number 3 the best. Also, even though the size isn't a problem for me, instinct tells me that the bold text might offset the smaller size somewhat. Anybody?
ZylonBane on 2/11/2003 at 14:58
I recommend instituting an aggressive program of flaming the bejeezus out of people who quote an entire paragraph or more when usually only a sentence or two is necessary to establish the context for their reply.
jer on 2/11/2003 at 17:33
#2 here. Personally I think there should be some sort of system that when someone is quoted, it is shrunk to "Three of four words ... The last four words" and be done with it. But this wouldn't make the people who laboriously break down every sentence of someone’s argument for fun happy.
mopgoblin on 4/11/2003 at 22:21
If the quotes are going to stay this small, could you at least make the size controlled by a stylesheet (by putting a class on the <blockquote>) rather than using <font size=1>, so that those who don't like it this way can use a user style sheet to override it?
jstnomega on 5/11/2003 at 03:50
#3 tho i can/will live w/o complaint w/whatever is decided
Shevers on 6/11/2003 at 18:16
3. The compromiser's choice.
:sly:
mopgoblin on 6/11/2003 at 23:31
Actually, I reckon 3 combines the worst aspects of 1 and 2 - a font size so low that it's difficult to read, combined with bold for the quoted text making it even worse. The bold/regular text of 2 is better than the italic/bold text of 1, but I don't think that's worth the small font size.
Macattack on 8/11/2003 at 01:30
I can smell a poll a'coming. :erm:
