...but it was the only (well, almost -- the "best", anyway) for me to find out what you were talking about.

Due to the differing timezones, it would have been while I was not using the link myself. And I don't get charged for upload bandwidth anyway.

Here's one vote for putting it in the HTML or HTML and CSS: I usually browse with CSS off. Yes, I know that's partly because of Netscape's bug-by-design coupling CSS to JavaScript, and it's mainly JavaScript I want off... But, as you say yourself, "doing graphic design with HTML is a bit of a gamble and it's not really designed for it"... So it might well be I'll keep CSS disabled in future versions of Netscape or other browsers, too. (Yes, I know CSS is "designed for graphic design" -- but I'm of the opinion that that isn't what the Web is all about!)

Be aware that Scott and I would like zIWETHEY to be able to present individual CSS options. We were discussing options the other day. At the very least, we need to somehow cater for those who want no CSS, those who want as much as practical, and those who want a mix for some reason.

Hmm... Not even if you specify a tiny little (e.g, four-point) font for the empty table? That won't affect me, of course, since I've set my browser to use my preferred font, no matter what the "Web designers" of the world think I should be seeing... And I must say I'm glad I did -- how ever slick your screen-shots look with their sans-serif font, to me good old boring Times New Roman (at 14 pt) still feels a lot more legible.

I experimented briefly with a really small font, but there were two problems: the first was that this was pushing the markup for page-layout purposes further than I was willing to go (witness your point about viewing the page in Times New Roman...) but the second and more annoying to me was that it required quite a deal more HTML. Besides, what I tried didn't work. Of course, those stripes are mere visual detail - they aren't required and they do nothing but take up basically empty space, anyway. So if they don't work quite right in some browsers, I shouldn't be that worried.

As far as fonts go, I'm divided as to sans-serif vs seriffed. As it happens, Microsoft's Verdana font is designed for high-legibility on a screen with medium to high text densities. It is basically perfect. Note that seriffed fonts will always require slightly more screen space - and Times New Roman isn't a particularly good screen font, anyway. IMO, Lucida Bright or even Footlight work better on the screen. But now we're starting to get esoteric.

There are several ways of looking at that:

1. Well, that's what the link underline is for, to serve as a visual reminder, so it's just good that it's clearly visible.
2. I won't have that problem, since I've set my preferences not to underline links.
3. Who cares what the silly little pictures look like -- the question is, WTF are they good for in the first place?!?
4. If we do care what they look like, the question occurs whether CD/VCR controls are really the best metaphor to use here... What's the equivalent of "Eject", really? :-)

The icons are a quick visual placeholder. I had no intention of abandoning the text labels, but once you know the icon to match the action you wanted, quite a few people will find it quicker to locate the relevant link.

The CD/VCR controls idea occurred to me as a "near-enough" analogy that I could borrow for not much time investment. Feel free to suggest another. I realized later that the full range I created is not actually on display, but if we want to go down that route, then I will link the whole lot in another message. And "eject" would map to "logout". :-)

OK, I think there was more stuff I thought about, but forgot... But never mind; these were the main points, and if something more occurs to me, I'll get back to you.

All responses welcome. You made some good points and I'm glad you did.

Wade.