>>- The difference in graphics for threads with new posts and threads
>>without is pretty minimal, especially for the ones with odd icons
>>(information, etc). I've mostly gotten used to it, but it would be
>>nice if the icons could be clearer on that point.

>You live with Truss, he's the graphics d00d. Tell him to make new
>icons. ;-)

I did. He said no.

>Basically color == new, monochrome == old.

I'm aware of that... but it's still not as clear as it ought to be. If there were just two icons for threads (yellow = new, monochrome = old), it would work fine - but with multiple types of icons (including the little information-sign things, the books, the anchors, etc), it gets confusing. It's nothing I can't figure out with a second look or half a second's thought, but I'm a big fan of making things extremely obvious and unambiguous, which the current scheme isn't. Of course, I may be the only one who prefers that, so feel free to ignore me if that's the case (this applies to this entire post).

>Sounds like a weird browser thing - the image URLs never change, so
>I'd expect the browser to have them cached. I forget if the icons
>have decent ALT text...

As far as I can tell, they don't have any ALT text, or at least none that I've seen. I'm betting the images not loading problem is a weird browser thing (and not one I have the motivation to fix, since it doesn't matter -that- much). My complaint was more from an ease-of-use standpoint - why use images when text would work just as well, if not better in some cases?

-- Anne