Advertisement Test ink post # 2 by James Kendrick Jul 13, 2005 - 11:47 AM CDT 9 Comments Tweet Share Post Advertisement Advertisement 9 Comments jk July 14th, 2005 The biggest drawback of this method for ink posting is the lack of search spidering by Google et. al. I can see using this method for short frivolous posts that I don’t make many of now because it’s a bit of a hassle using the TypePad editor. Plus this way I can do them offline and post later. Jeff Singfiel July 13th, 2005 I’m really liking ink for emphasis or effect, but I will always prefer reading normal text. I really speed read most blog entries and at the end of the day, it takes a lot more mental power to read ink than it does text. Keep experimenting though! Michael July 13th, 2005 The image itself is fine if you save it as a file and open it in an image program but it gets all pixillated when re-sized by TypePad. Try an image of writing that is about 2/3 of your previous width in pixels. It should look fine because it won’t need to be re-sized. Craigp July 13th, 2005 Looks pretty good really when not resized. I’m still not sold on blogging in ink for the sake of it and would not give up having my posts searchable – but where ink adds value (like including a diagram)this is a good way to do it.Well done: (So simple – Why didn’t I think of that!?!) jk July 13th, 2005 It’s the image resizing thing that TypePad does. If you click on the ink it opens a normal size window and looks really good. Colin Walker July 13th, 2005 Looking good James. Don’t know if it’s because the image is resized on the blog page but it is much smoother in the RSS feed. Kevin C. Tofel July 13th, 2005 Looks fairly good. I can’t wait until we can post in ink natively, i.e.; without it being an image file. Todd July 13th, 2005 Not too bad, fairly legible and two colors even! :) Comments are closed.