New look

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
The mods can move the thread in a day or two. I'd appreciate it if we can get as much feedback as possible.
 
Boob-No-More said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's quite unclear. That is, it's clear what you prefer, but not clear which is "better for viewers," plural. I worked for a few companies as a web designer and user-interface designer and found that both fixed width and fluid width implementations led to mixed reviews. All else held equal, fluid width wasn't clearly more popular. It's not just a question of "what is easier for site-designers"...some things just can't be done with fixed width.

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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my suggestion, too. I don't want only a very wide fixed width, since it goes off my browser window...but since there's a narrow fixed width layout, I think it would be a good idea for the "wide version" to be quite wide.
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same here, minus the 30 inch part. I prefer to have my browser small and have posts read like a book page, and to be able to see the rest of my screen and other browsers. The only time my monitor only has one thing viewable is when I am watching a 1080/720 movie or playing a game.
 
the check box option kicks ass on my 19inch :D
 
Looks silly on my 24 inch 1920 by 1200 monitor, fine on my 15 inch 1200 by 800 laptop, and great on my 10 inch 1000 by 600 netbook. On my ZN5 mobile browser it looks the same when I have it set on "squish" so everything appears on one long page, as I can't see any borders. However, it does load significantly faster on my phone like this for some reason.


Edit:

After playing with the checkbox, the website looks much better on the 24 inch monitor. And theres no point using it on anything smaller (that I have).
 
Last edited:
J~Rush said:
Looks silly on my 24 inch 1920 by 1200 monitor, fine on my 15 inch 1200 by 800 laptop, and great on my 10 inch 1000 by 600 netbook. On my ZN5 mobile browser it looks the same when I have it set on "squish" so everything appears on one long page, as I can't see any borders. However, it does load significantly faster on my phone like this for some reason.


Edit:

After playing with the checkbox, the website looks much better on the 24 and 16 inch monitors. And theres no point using it on anything smaller.
Click to expand...

You have your browser full screen on the 24" monitor?

Don't lots of other sites have fixed width?
 
Denny Crane said:
You have your browser full screen on the 24" monitor?

Don't lots of other sites have fixed width?
Click to expand...

I normally don't even use my 24 inch monitor as a browser. I mainly use it for the xbox 360, CAD programs, TV, and when I need lots of real estate when I'm moving things around or writing a paper with tons of sources. It could be the dark red borders act as an optical illusion making the page seem smaller, most other sites with fixed width have much lighter ones.



Edit:

I think the Realgm forums are even thinner than this one. The page doesn't look as silly there however.

Here's an example from some random hockey forum: http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=212. I think it's the lighter, patterned border that makes the difference.

As you pointed out, I don't really use the largest monitor for web browsing anyways, so it makes little practical difference.
 
Last edited:
I don't really mind the smaller screen. The bars are wider than the actual forum on my 23". Also I didn't even notice the banner. It's so high up it's hard to see. With the ad, forum listings, OT breakout, & the stickies...it's basically invisible most of the time.
 
Minstrel said:
That's quite unclear. That is, it's clear what you prefer, but not clear which is "better for viewers," plural. I worked for a few companies as a web designer and user-interface designer and found that both fixed width and fluid width implementations led to mixed reviews. All else held equal, fluid width wasn't clearly more popular. It's not just a question of "what is easier for site-designers"...some things just can't be done with fixed width.
Click to expand...

What size and aspect ratio were the monitors used during these user tests? Nearly 100% of all monitors sold these days are wide screen aspect ratio (16:9. or similar). Just a couple years ago, most were 4:3. Also, as prices come down on 22", 23" and 24" monitors, they become much more common. I would think that fluid vs. fixed width user preferences would be greatly influenced by screen size and aspect ratio, and tests conducted today would yield different results than tests conducted even two years ago.

Since a fluid width page automatically adjusts to match the user's monitor (or browser window if running less than full screen), I don't see what the downside is for fluid width pages for the end user. If he has a small screen or small browser window open the fluid page will automatically compensate. But, if he has a large screen the page will take full advantage of his hardware. The problem with fixed width pages is, no one size fits all. So, which fixed width (or widths) do you support? No matter what you chose, it won't be optimal for all users.

BNM
 
BlazersBlood said:
I don't really mind the smaller screen. The bars are wider than the actual forum on my 23". Also I didn't even notice the banner. It's so high up it's hard to see. With the ad, forum listings, OT breakout, & the stickies...it's basically invisible most of the time.
Click to expand...

In newspaper terms, the banner is "above the fold." It's what new people will see first.

You tried the checkbox?
 
Denny Crane said:
You have your browser full screen on the 24" monitor?
Click to expand...

Yes. I visit a lot of web sites with tables, spreadsheets, high resolution video, etc. So, I almost always run my browser full width. Keep in mind I have two 24" monitors. So, I can have a full width browser open on one and still see all my applications, email, additional browser window, etc. on the second 24" monitor.

Denny Crane said:
Don't lots of other sites have fixed width?
Click to expand...

Ironic, isn't it? Now that you can't hardly find a new non-wide screen monitor for sale, more and more web sites are going to fixed width pages. It seems like a cruel hoax by the computer industry - get us all to spend money on new wide screen panels and then refuse to provide content that takes advantages of all that screen real estate.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Since a fluid width page automatically adjusts to match the user's monitor (or browser window if running less than full screen), I don't see what the downside is for fluid width pages for the end user.
Click to expand...

The downside is that certain types of layouts can't be done. Pixel perfect layouts can't be done (you can't mix pixel-specified sizes and percentage-specified sizes with any sort of reliable results) so that means you can't provide displays that rely on precision. If all you want are square elements that have a very linear relation to one another and no worries about the space between them, then liquid is much better. But if you and your users like/want precisely-engineered layouts, you pretty much have to go fixed width.

For discussion forums, liquid generally works fine because the layouts aren't complicated and it doesn't matter what the spacing is between, say, the post stream section and a sidebar. And I liked the liquid layout fine. I'm not entirely sure what design issues have prompted the designers here to go fixed width but I think several different fixed-widths work out okay (even if not optimal). I don't think it makes the site much worse to use (I've tried it on a wide screen and my usual browsing option, a laptop) and since it's free, I'm pretty understanding if they want to make a compromise for either their own ease of design or to do something they can't do otherwise.
 
Minstrel said:
The downside is that certain types of layouts can't be done. Pixel perfect layouts can't be done (you can't mix pixel-specified sizes and percentage-specified sizes with any sort of reliable results) so that means you can't provide displays that rely on precision. If all you want are square elements that have a very linear relation to one another and no worries about the space between them, then liquid is much better. But if you and your users like/want precisely-engineered layouts, you pretty much have to go fixed width.

For discussion forums, liquid generally works fine because the layouts aren't complicated and it doesn't matter what the spacing is between, say, the post stream section and a sidebar. And I liked the liquid layout fine. I'm not entirely sure what design issues have prompted the designers here to go fixed width but I think several different fixed-widths work out okay (even if not optimal). I don't think it makes the site much worse to use (I've tried it on a wide screen and my usual browsing option, a laptop) and since it's free, I'm pretty understanding if they want to make a compromise for either their own ease of design or to do something they can't do otherwise.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts. I read a lot of online forums. A couple are fixed width, but most are fluid. I greatly prefer the fluid width forums as they require a LOT less scrolling when viewed in a wide screen of reasonable (or exceptional) size. For smaller screens, it doesn't really matter, you'll still have to do a lot of scrolling whether the forum page width is fixed or variable. So, from an end user perspective, on a site like this, what, if any, are the advantages of a fixed page width? I sure can't think of any.

I have no idea what prompted the change from fluid to fixed width pages on this site. As you say, there is certainly no need for precision pixel-percent layouts in a discussion forum. It's their site and they can change the look and feel anyway they wish. But, they asked for input, and frankly the new fixed width layout requires a lot more scrolling up and down for someone with a decent size display panel and really adds nothing of obvious benefit for users of smaller screens. I find all this scrolling tedious and the wide maroonish/brown bars on both sides of the actual content a waste of valuable real estate. That's just my opinion and the reasons I can't stand fixed width pages. Like so many things in our society, they cater to the least common denominator and don't take full advantage of valuable resources (in this case my 24" wide screens and my precious time).

BNM
 
Well, I believe most dual monitors are aimed at corporate businesses and people who game.
 
By the way, when I have the "wide" box checked, every page loads first in the narrow mode and then re-sizes to "wide". This further increases load times and detracts from the enjoyment of browsing this site. The old fluid pages only loaded once - in the correct aspect ratio every time. So, now I basically have two options, teeny, tiny narrow pages (like reading a newspaper that's one column wide), or load times that have increased by a factor of 2x. I find both options greatly inferior to the old fluid width page style.

BNM
 
You must be using dial-up, then. I tested that and it flicks to the wider mode almost instantly.
 
Boob-No-More said:
By the way, when I have the "wide" box checked, every page loads first in the narrow mode and then re-sizes to "wide". This further increases load times and detracts from the enjoyment of browsing this site. The old fluid pages only loaded once - in the correct aspect ratio every time. So, now I basically have two options, teeny, tiny narrow pages (like reading a newspaper that's one column wide), or load times that have increased by a factor of 2x. I find both options greatly inferior to the old fluid width page style.

BNM
Click to expand...

The load time is no different for either mode. It does render the narrow mode but switches the graphics and layout size with javascript immediately upon load. The narrow and wide banners are in your browser cache already. No other images are required for either mode; that is, they're already there on the page.
 
BlazersBlood said:
What and where is the checkbox? I've looked all over and can't find it.
Click to expand...

Right next to the Log Out link underneath your name - upper right corner of the page.

You only have to check it once, it'll remember your choice after that.
 
Denny Crane said:
The load time is no different for either mode. It does render the narrow mode but switches the graphics and layout size with javascript immediately upon load. The narrow and wide banners are in your browser cache already. No other images are required for either mode; that is, they're already there on the page.
Click to expand...

BTW, the whole point in this effort is to make the site a bit more graphically appealing to new visitors, with the hope they'll like it and stick around.
 
Denny Crane said:
Right next to the Log Out link underneath your name - upper right corner of the page.

You only have to check it once, it'll remember your choice after that.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that's a little bit better. Thanks for the quick reply.

And I like the choice of burgandy color and not the bright scarlet for the borders. Good job guys.
 
Denny, I like the look but would rather go back to fluid. I really don't care as much about how pretty the banner is compared to how easily I can manipulate multiple pages on my screen. I play a lot of online poker and usually keep a couple games going on the right of my screen and a very narrow Blazer board on the left. Now, it just does not fit.

In the end, I applaud you for trying to make the site better, but prefer the fluid setup.
 
We're discussing what it takes to go back to a fluid layout. We do want to change the top bit of the pages. As they were, there was a tiny banner/image on the left and a big black bar to the right of it. That's wasted space, above the fold, and I thought it was ugly. It originally allowed us to put an ad banner up there, but the ad placement we now have is better, IMO.
 
I came into this way late but I too also prefer the old style...but i could live either way
 
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
258
dviss1
dviss1

Users who are viewing this thread

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