New look

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Pardon me while I screw up the site for a few minutes implementing this checkbox to toggle the width.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the effort; I'll always go with the narrowest possible view, since I view this site a lot on a smartphone and netbook with a small display.
 
I absolutely HATE fixed width web pages. Most monitors sold these days have wide screen aspect ratios. So, here I set with a pair of 24" wide screen monitors and I'm stuck reading this forum as a little narrow strip running down the center of one of my monitors. A lot of amateur blogs also use fixed width templates and they look , well very amatuerish.

What you need is a fluid width template that automatically adjusts the page width to the users monitor. Much, much better, and more professional looking, than this narrow, fixed width crap.

BNM
 
I think the checkbox to the right of "log out" near the top right of the page will toggle the layout width.

I have to do a bit more coding to remember your setting from page to page.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think the checkbox to the right of "log out" near the top right of the page will toggle the layout width.

I have to do a bit more coding to remember your setting from page to page.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the checkbox toggles the width on a particular page nicely. Once it remembers the preference from page to page, it'll be perfect.

Thanks!
 
Denny Crane said:
I think the checkbox to the right of "log out" near the top right of the page will toggle the layout width.

I have to do a bit more coding to remember your setting from page to page.
Click to expand...

But I have to check it each time
 
When I toggle the check box, it just results in a slightly wider narrow strip down the center of my 24" (1920 x1200) wide screen monitor. I'm still stuck with huge wide maroonish brown bars down both sides of my screen. In order to make this work, you really need a fluid page width that automatically adjusts the page width to match the viewers monitor. This checkbox approach is a bandaid, not a solution.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
When I toggle the check box, it just results in a slightly wider narrow strip down the center of my 24" (1920 x1200) wide screen monitor. I'm still stuck with huge wide maroonish brown bars down both sides of my screen. In order to make this work, you really need a fluid page width that automatically adjusts the page width to match the viewers monitor. This checkbox approach is a bandaid, not a solution.

BNM
Click to expand...

It's not strictly true, because up until today we had a fluid page, but felt that it restricted us too much in terms of creativity of the banners and graphics of the site. We have to make a compromise in order to have the creativity we want whilst still catering towards all monitor sizes.
 
Fluid design versus fixed widths is one of the big conundrums among web designers. With fluid widths, you sacrifice a lot of layout ability, because you can't get pixel-perfect placement. But, of course, fluid design is a more elegant structure since it adapts to the user. There's definitely no consensus on the "right approach" between fluid and fixed.

I liked the fluid design the best, but I understand that that can be constricting for design issues. So, I like the compromise to have two fixed width options...one wider, one narrower.

One thought is that you might make the "wide" layout even wider, now that you have the narrower version.
 
The state of the checkbox is now saved in a cookie, and it should remember it from page to page. You'll have to reload once to try it out.
Not all the banners on the site are done, so it may look a little screwy.

There may be other ramifications, like the size of post editor boxes and that sort of thing, may be wrong.

It looks good in the quick reply tho.
 
D'oh

After quick reply, the new post added is wrong width. Fixing it.
 
Check box is a terrific solution. Although there is still quite a bit of empty space on either side of the text area, it looks better than it did earlier.

Thanks for the effort, Denny.

And props to the banner maker. It looks great.
 
Wow I love it. I've got a 24" monitor as well and will not be adjusting the width as this narrow down the middle centering makes it feel like a blog, which I enjoy. Excellent work, and thank you.
 
FWIW, I'm on a 21" 1600x1200 monitor, but I don't set up my browser to be full screen. It's just a tad wider than the 1136/1200 resolution so I can see other windows behind/around it. It does look nice, IMO. The only real difference for me is if I resize my browser bigger or smaller - bigger and I get more border around the page, smaller and I have to scroll to see it all.
 
Ronan said:
Denny, http://sportstwo.com (homepage) looks messed up.
Click to expand...

The home page blows, IMO. It's always messed up when it's putting up a post in the center column that has something that's too wide to fit. In this case, it's the preformatted concacaf standings.
 
Minstrel said:
Fluid design versus fixed widths is one of the big conundrums among web designers. With fluid widths, you sacrifice a lot of layout ability, because you can't get pixel-perfect placement. But, of course, fluid design is a more elegant structure since it adapts to the user. There's definitely no consensus on the "right approach" between fluid and fixed.

I liked the fluid design the best, but I understand that that can be constricting for design issues. So, I like the compromise to have two fixed width options...one wider, one narrower.

One thought is that you might make the "wide" layout even wider, now that you have the narrower version.
Click to expand...

From a viewer point, fluid width is MUCH better. So, it all depends on your priority. If the goal the best user experience, fluid width is preferable. If the goal is to make things easier for the site designers, fixed width is easier.

Personally, as a user I HATE fixed width pages. I didn't spend the money on a pair of 24" wide screens so I could read a bunch of narrow little web pages that require endless scrolling just to read a single thread.

If you insist on fixed width pages, can we at least have a wide setting that actually makes it worthwhile to have a wide screen monitor? As far as my user experience is concerned, there is currently no wide setting. Right now, the two checkbox settings on my monitor look like narrow and narrower. This "upgrade" greatly detracts from my enjoyment of the site.

BNM
 
I'll work on a 3rd setting in the next week or two.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'll work on a 3rd setting in the next week or two.
Click to expand...

With all the work required to support three different settings, wouldn't it be easier to just use a fluid page width and let the software automatically set the page width for each user based on their monitor's resolution?

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
With all the work required to support three different settings, wouldn't it be easier to just use a fluid page width and let the software automatically set the page width for each user based on their monitor's resolution?

BNM
Click to expand...

It's really a lot more work to set up banners for the top that work great in a fluid setup.

You're at one end of the spectrum with the wide screen. I have a 30" monitor on my desktop that's 2560x1600... But I don't open my browser full screen; I don't want to have to read a whole post that's one line all the way across.

The other end is folks with tiny screens. Netbooks and blackberries and iPhones and other handhelds are becoming a lot bigger part of what I'm seeing as browsers hitting the site.

Think about how a banner has to work for a screen that's 400 px wide...

Even at the small resolution fixed width, they have to scroll a lot and zoom in to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
20 Years Ago Today: The First Website Is Published
Replies
8
Views
1K
BLAZER PROPHET
B
CelticBalla32
Official NBA 2k8 Information Thread
2 3
Replies
79
Views
8K
Universe
Universe
SlyPokerDog
Science 1491
Replies
2
Views
259
dviss1
dviss1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top