Page top

2011/05/04: May the 4th Be With You: A Site Change Thingy

Created:

Always use secure-HTTP / Secure HTTP / Permanent Link

Yeah, it's Star Wars day.

So, I was using another computer today, and it had a really huge resolution, probably 1600x900 or something, I dunno. But on this really huge resolution, the site looked way too wide. Therefore, I'm experimenting with giving the site a fixed maximum width of 960 pixels; you probably won't notice this if your window is less than that. You can switch it back by clicking on the "redcolumn" link in the header-bar.

Also pondering adjusting the backend a bit to store a separate file from the one the site-viewers actually see, and be able to process it a bit. This will let me 1. test changes to an already-published page before publishing the changes, and 2. change markup a bit, i.e. I could type <spoiler>spoiler-text!</spoiler> and it'd automatically change it to <span class="spoiler">spoiler-text!</span> since there isn't a real "<spoiler>" HTML-tag. Though to the users, this information will be fairly useless unless I actually release this CMS to the public, I suppose.

18 Comments (auto-closed) (rss feed)

John Evans

I have a very wide resolution, and I got used to the page looking wide...^_^;

XephyrEnigma

Eh. I notice no difference, and you'll hear no complaints from me.

linkhyrule5

Yeah, I kinda like the widescreen version.

xbolt

I run at 1920x1200, and personally, I liked it when it filled my huge screen. But maybe that's just because that's what I'm used to. ;)

KennyMan666

No, no, not fixed width. Very much not fixed width. So much wasted space.

KennyMan666

Oh, go me not noticing you could change back, though. Whelp.

thekillerhjk

i for one love this new layout for widescreenness

now i dont have to turn my head as much anymore

Hunter 1

Eh, I use a 1600x900 monitor, with a Firefox window taking up slightly more than the left half of the screen, and the old way is fine for me.

Formica Archonis

(Looks.) Yeah, no. Old way means that once I ignore the sidebar I still have 920 pixels/1 foot of used space, which is nice. Now I'm losing about that much PLUS the extra for the sidebar, which looks smushed.

(Clicks "redcolumn".) Ahhhhh.:)

Kimiko Muffin

@Kennyman666: So, of course my immediate thought is to imagine "so much wasted space!" in the Space Sphere's voice. That said, how does it compare with websites which have a maximum-width of, I dunno, something like 800 pixels?

I suppose what I really ought to do is to experiment more with different sizes, but what I'd need for that is an actual bigsize monitor. If I get it much bigger than the 960, it's already bigger than my monitor-size (1152x864, for the record).

Hunter 1

Yeah, that's the limitation of practical testing: If you don't have whatever you're going to test, you can't test it.

1152x864... That's a 4:3 screen, isn't it?

Kimiko Muffin

Yep.

Wolf

Huh I was kind of used to the whole wide screen bit since my laptop runs on a 1440x900 setting here. I never noticed the change until now though.

Don't want to sound like I'm complaining or anything, but what brought on htis change now?

KennyMan666

Well, I'm on a 1600x1200 monitor, so fixed width tends to be very noticeable. It was definitely one of the greates issues I took with the new Wikia skin, but that was even worse since they layout of that involved wasted space within the content area, too. But yeah, in general, non-fixed width is far more preferable. It depends on the rest of the website, too, and what the width is actually fixed to, but this one definitely rang my "wasted space" bells.

Kimiko Muffin

@Wolf: As I said in the text, using a computer with a much higher resolution than I'm used to.

KennyMan666

Also: Make sure the site actually remembers what style the user has selected. Otherwise there's not much point in having a selection.

Wolf

Yeah I kind of have to agree with that since it feels like I have to select that every single time I come to this site, and I kind of find it a bit of a hassle at times.

Kimiko Muffin

/ Modified by Kimiko Muffin:

Easy enough to implement. EDIT: Done. If you change the style-setting, it will keep it as long as you visit the site more than once every thirty days (reset every time you view a page here).

Anyway, I'm trying out new "flex" layout which, instead of a number-of-pixels, shrinks it down to 87.5% of the maximum. That's 1400px wide on 1600x900, and 1008px on 1152x864. I'm working on a secondary one which would be "75% plus 128 pixels" (respectively 1328 and 992), but that version's giving me a bit of trouble. EDITEDIT: ... because I misnamed one of the tags, whoops. This method. It is "redsemiflex" in the list of options. Only "problem" is that below a certain point (around 504 pixels plus scrollbar), you get horizontal scrolling, but at that point it looks like shit to begin with.