Is mostly great -- but its a matter of degree. If one gets too much feedback or call for customer support something is clearly wrong, (eg First Direct's problems this last week in changing procedures so that, among other disruptions, Safari, the default Mac browser, is no longer supported). Occasionally feedback is simply positive and gratifying to hear. Blush, blush, this came in through the feedback box last night:
Super .............new media formatKevin's message is great, but I have a small, ever so tiny, issue with it -- an abhorrence of wasps. Could someone else please send us some feedback saying they are a butterfly seeking nectar, a bear with a honey pot, or even a bee with a jam jar? Wasps and smeared jam just gives me the heebie jeebies. Especially the ZZZZZZ..... This is a trial issue to Kevin's magazine.
I really enjoyed buzzing around the magazine
like a wasp looking for sticky jam
ZZZZZZZZZZZ must go ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZ and have a look again ZZZZZZ
THANKS
A small change to our service this week - which hardly anybody noticed (zero feedback so far). The largest size for our large format magazines, just got a little bit larger. The change is not retrospective but will apply to new issues coming through, so you will need to subscribe to one of the relevant titles or wait for a new trial issue. Take my word for it they are bigger. Here is a page in the older small size from the Press Gazette, and another from the LRB. New pages: area roughly 40% bigger than a week ago, more virtual paper but no environmental impact.
2 comments:
No environmental impact? :-)
'No' must be an overstatement. The marginal cost of the database storing larger images, presumably costs not nothing in terms of storage and associated energy cost. I guess the network and the active use also calls for slightly more energy handling a bigger JPEG. So yes, better to say the environmental impact is very, very, very, very small.
Post a Comment