PDA

View Full Version : This new site only uses half of the screen.. why?



380mcn
12-08-2011, 05:08 PM
With super duper monitor resolutions available.. this 'new' site uses rules from the 1990's! WTF? are we getting back to the 1024x768 era?
The font used is difficult to read, it's color doesn't help either and the image limit is a joke..

IMHO this is not a forum.. ..this is a recipe webpage..

Area 66
12-08-2011, 05:42 PM
I don't see it as a problem, aside peoples with tablets or netbook will apreciate

xeromist
12-08-2011, 06:38 PM
I like having a layout that doesn't require the full screen because I have other windows open as well. Not to mention when I'm on my netbook I don't have the super resolution that you say everyone has. Is the layout causing a problem for you?

As for the color scheme and image limit, look to the top of the page and you'll notice it says BETA. Things can and will change. If you set the rudeness aside and constructively communicate changes you think would help then I'm sure the site operators would be happy to listen and consider them.

_
12-09-2011, 02:03 AM
With super duper monitor resolutions available.. this 'new' site uses rules from the 1990's! WTF? are we getting back to the 1024x768 era?
The font used is difficult to read, it's color doesn't help either and the image limit is a joke..

IMHO this is not a forum.. ..this is a recipe webpage..

I appreciate your honesty but it's a forum and a website though. ;) Although I know vB has the option of users selecting full width, so I'll see if I can enable it for you to try (vB CMS is a nightmare though).

FYI the two most popular resolutions used are 13x7 and 19x10. The font is off-white because if it's pure white it's too difficult to read as the contrast with black is too sharp so it creates a halo effect on many monitors. Which font exactly is difficult to read and what font would you prefer?

I'm gonna change the image limit in a minute, once I can find the option (gonna kill who designed vB CMS...)

DaemonCantor
12-09-2011, 02:14 AM
I like this format but the font color is still a little bright with the black background, maybe go to a light gray...but then again that might not be too good when I try to look at it on one of my darker monitors. as to the font I think it's very readable as versus a Serif font I do prefer the San-Serif....vB has always been a pain to work with so I feel for you all I personally like Simple Machines Forum Software it's a lot easier to configure and maintain.

_
12-09-2011, 02:55 AM
I like this format but the font color is still a little bright with the black background, maybe go to a light gray...but then again that might not be too good when I try to look at it on one of my darker monitors. as to the font I think it's very readable as versus a Serif font I do prefer the San-Serif....vB has always been a pain to work with so I feel for you all I personally like Simple Machines Forum Software it's a lot easier to configure and maintain.

I think we're gonna have to work on themes of varying font color to suit everyone's monitors. That'll take considerably longer though.

When starting the site development we didn't really want to use vB if I'm honest, but because two other ROG forums already use vB we kinda went with the flow so not to lose the communities. ROG France will join us eventually, it's just working out how cause they have lots of vB mods.

chrsplmr
12-09-2011, 03:46 AM
the site is in 16:9 ... i think most monitors are 4:3... am i wrong?
sites are longer than wide..... just a few bugs...

i like where this is going though....tweak away good man.....c.

DaemonCantor
12-09-2011, 05:08 AM
the site is in 16:9 ... i think most monitors are 4:3... am i wrong?
sites are longer than wide..... just a few bugs...

i like where this is going though....tweak away good man.....c.

Depends as it is now this site is 4:3 and most of the monitors created over the last 3 years are 16:9 or 16:7 the only monitors that are 4:3 are the old CRT's I've still got about 10 of those left that still work....1080I/P are both 16:9 and three of my 24" LCD's are 1080p(I just replaced all of them last month with a Deal I got from Geeks all 3 are ViewSonic's)

xeromist
12-09-2011, 06:50 AM
I don't see why people are saying that there is any aspect ratio at all. The pages all extend to a length well beyond the height of any monitor. So how is anyone calculating the aspect ratio when the length is variable?

Grandpa
12-09-2011, 08:29 AM
I like this format but the font color is still a little bright with the black background, maybe go to a light gray...but then again that might not be too good when I try to look at it on one of my darker monitors. as to the font I think it's very readable as versus a Serif font I do prefer the San-Serif....vB has always been a pain to work with so I feel for you all I personally like Simple Machines Forum Software it's a lot easier to configure and maintain.

I can tell you have young eyes, my tired old bad eyes think the brightness is just right I can actually read it without straining. :cool:

380mcn
12-09-2011, 11:43 PM
LOL.

You're missing the point regarding resolutions: if you have a low resolution (tablets, smartphone) the site dynamically adjusts to your resolution, but if you use something like FULL HD, you'll end up using ONLY half of the screen (horizontally of course). The rest is left black, and left right. the site is just centered.

watch:
4864

P.S: the color is still not adequate.. a little bright and a little bigger. i know i can zoom, but in the past one could read more and better.

DaemonCantor
12-10-2011, 03:30 AM
I don't see why people are saying that there is any aspect ratio at all. The pages all extend to a length well beyond the height of any monitor. So how is anyone calculating the aspect ratio when the length is variable?

Length isn't what is calculated by vBulletin as it uses native aspect ratio of 4.3 for Pictures and the WEB Standards for page display given are still using the old Display Standards from clear back in the 90's...the Web is slowly updating with variable width but still to this date the graphics capability is still stuck at old standards and that is why we still calculate with an aspect ratio of only 4.3 it's just the same as with making pages even the best editors will give you a choice of widths but they are all still based on the same aspect ratio...Look at Dreamweaver or Freeway(Mac HTML/XML Editor) all of the with settings are standard resolutions(4.3)and none are wide screen formats(16.9)... There used to be a setting in vB that would allow variable width but it's been 3 years since I've used the program.

chrsplmr
12-10-2011, 08:39 PM
D, this one is 16:9....I think. I have been wrong before..hahaha..
But...... In all the testing for a size that would hold L & W ... only 800x200 worked... ie..800x800 or 800x400 or 400x800 for that matter... but images @ 800x200 --- if you place an image @ full size & save it -- then right click on the image as it appears in the post -- then click properties --- the full size -- size is 799x199 .... but is consistent from image to image ... 'The Project" was/is 1080x45000+, even resized to
800W----divide the length by 200=? number of images necessary to replace 'The Project' to its original state.
Now...hahhahha...divide that by the 15 image limit per post = ? The number of posts to [OPEN] the same Thread.....
but.....et......this to shall pass like GrandMa's Lasagna........for example.....the answer = YouTube @ 1080 ...
...in progress..c.

xeromist
12-12-2011, 07:57 PM
LOL.

You're missing the point regarding resolutions: if you have a low resolution (tablets, smartphone) the site dynamically adjusts to your resolution

I haven't seen that. I just tried changing to 800x600 and clicking through a few pages. All are bigger than full screen. Right now it's one size fits all and the current size offers plenty of readability for everyone.

I still don't understand why this matters. Why does the site need to be wider? Would it be nice for wider monitors? Of course, but not at the cost of people with smaller screens. I have yet to hear a valid reason why they should have to scroll more so that you can scroll less.

xeromist
12-12-2011, 08:37 PM
Length isn't what is calculated by vBulletin as it uses native aspect ratio of 4.3 for Pictures and the WEB Standards for page display given are still using the old Display Standards from clear back in the 90's...the Web is slowly updating with variable width but still to this date the graphics capability is still stuck at old standards and that is why we still calculate with an aspect ratio of only 4.3 it's just the same as with making pages even the best editors will give you a choice of widths but they are all still based on the same aspect ratio...Look at Dreamweaver or Freeway(Mac HTML/XML Editor) all of the with settings are standard resolutions(4.3)and none are wide screen formats(16.9)... There used to be a setting in vB that would allow variable width but it's been 3 years since I've used the program.

Hrmm, I haven't really played with images but if it is deforming images to 4:3 then that is a problem. 380mcn's attached image above doesn't seem to be altered though (other than scaling).

Still, that doesn't mean the whole site has an aspect ratio, which is what it sounded like people were saying. The length of each page varies so the site itself has no defined aspect ratio, only a defined width and some rough guidelines on where to break pages.

chrsplmr
12-12-2011, 08:44 PM
its the resizing that is a problem...for large images....it cuts them...not resize them...no right scroll to it...just cut.
if it resized everything to a set Width...no problem for anybody...the screen you were viewing it on would adjust accordingly..
and the only scrolling would be down....
so...adjust to with....say 800dpi like the last site...and leave the length adjust to aspect ratio...and its all good...c.