Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: joedevico on November 14, 2006, 11:36:54 am
-
Hey -
I like the fonts and colors of the new CSS design on the homepage, but what is the intended viewing size? 1024x768 cuts off the site. It's fine on my main editing machine, but on the web browsing machine - which I run at a lower resolution, The site is too large...
Thanks,
Joe DeVico
-
Looks perfect at 1152x854 - Now I just need my reading glasses....
-
Still fine tuning. Should be better on a small screen now.
Michael
-
Still fine tuning. Should be better on a small screen now.
Unfortunately still a bit problematic.
Keep in mind that not everybody runs their browser in full-screen mode, and many users enjoy to view their bookmarks or other information in a sidebar.
On the positive side, site navigation just became noticeably better.
Well done!
-
Unfortunately still a bit problematic.
Keep in mind that not everybody runs their browser in full-screen mode, and many users enjoy to view their bookmarks or other information in a sidebar.
On the positive side, site navigation just became noticeably better.
Well done!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I find the design a bit wide - especially the left navigation bar but other than that, the new design is a welcome improvement.
And, there's even a "what's new" RSS feed!
-
The Home Page should now be viewable on a 800 pixel wide screen without scrolling. Otherwise the whole site is dynamically adjustable to any page width.
Michael
-
WHOA! I was reading an article and hit Refresh and this new design pops up! Nice!
This looks like the start of something great Michael.
-
Great Michael!
-
The Home Page should now be viewable on a 800 pixel wide screen without scrolling.
Otherwise the whole site is dynamically adjustable to any page width.
No, the pages with text seem to clip at around 1024 pixels total window width, at the default font size.
On the What's New page, this is best verified against the RSS icon.
Tested on the following platform with the following browsers:
Windows XP 64-bit edition
- Microsoft Internet Explorer 6*, requires around 1300 pixels width
- Mozilla Firefox 2.0, changing font sizes in Firefox doesn't resolve the problem.
- Opera 9, same as Firefox 2.0
* January is the expected release time for non-English editions, and although I prefer to run the English version, I've waited with the upgrade.
-
Who's viewing this at 800x600?! Isn't 1024x768 the minimum for most monitors made in the past few years? And aren't LCDs typically running above and beyond that?
I really think we're past the point where we need to lowball our design specs. Michael, have your web guy take a look at the site stats...what percentage of users view LL running 800x600?
Based on the stats for my site, two years ago 800x600 users accounted for roughly 1% of all the traffic to my site. Last year, that number dropped to 0.6%. So far this year I've had one (yes, 1) single user view the site at 800x600.
Do you really need to target 800x600 anymore?
-
I agree with ^^^^ 100%. I just redid our site again (every 2 years) and bumped up the min width requirement as well. The days of catering to the VERY small percentage of people using old-ass hardware is gone. Cater to the masses. Good job so far, I'm sure the right side will morph over time to match the excellent look of the new left!
-
The site is designed for 1024 width, same as the previous version. I thought that Jani was complaining about the Home Page graphics, which I made smaller.
Making is smaller than 1024 isn't terribly meaningful in today's environment, as has already been pointed out.
Michael
-
kaelaria,
Your avatar is scaring me. It's like you want to jump through my screen and poke my eyes out
Tim
-
ARRRGH!! BOOGA BOOGA! LOL
-
Making is smaller than 1024 isn't terribly meaningful in today's environment, as has already been pointed out.
Unless, as I've already pointed out, the user isn't running the browser in full screen mode, or the user uses side bars. If you've only been using Internet Explorer, I can see how such usage seems exotic or strange, but it's perfectly commonplace with Mozilla, Firefox and Opera users.
I'm not personally bothered by the requirement of 1030 pixels wide (which is how it turns out with default settings in Camino and Safari on my Mac); since I'm running displays with 1280x1024, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, I feel fairly certain that I won't be seriously inconvenienced in the next few years.
The gibes others make at 800x600 are tasteless and inconsiderate; that's not what it is about at all.
-
I agree with ^^^^ 100%. I just redid our site again (every 2 years) and bumped up the min width requirement as well. The days of catering to the VERY small percentage of people using old-ass hardware is gone. Cater to the masses. Good job so far, I'm sure the right side will morph over time to match the excellent look of the new left!
Old-ass hardware such as the brand new Sony Ericsson M600, W950 or the Nokia e70?
It's thinking that any display device can meet a certain "minimum requirement" that's "old-ass"; that thinking predates the web, and when the web came, we had to redo our thinking, since we couldn't know what display devices our users had.
Nothing's changed in that regard, only that (X)HTML and CSS now offer far better support for floating design elements to support this multitude of display sizes, as well as the option of different style sheets for different kinds of devices.
-
lol - I wouldn't want to do any serious web surfing on those! I'll amend my list - old-ass hardware (old monitors) or silly small-ass screened hardware (of any age)
-
As soon I have my new widescreen monitor, you can adjust your sites to 1900x1200 or something...800x600 looks so old fashioned these days
-
jani,
Jakob Nielsen just called. He told me to tell you there's only room in cyberspace for ONE belittling Mr. Blackwell of Web Design.
I'm a big fan of Web 2.0, usability, standards, the whole lot. But c'mon, you're suggesting LL should be able to be read on a wireless device? I can't imagine doing so (for very long anyways). It's clear Michael has made an educated decision based on feedback/site statistics/advice of his web person.
Maybe you should offer your services in designing for wireless devices to him in exchange for a subscription to the LL Video Journal??? Michael, make sure you include a free pair of bifocals with his subscription....he'll need it if he intends on viewing LL on any of those devices!
Tim
-
Hello Michael,
Like everybody else, i just discovered your new site's design.
On one hand, it nice to see it alive and evoluting.
On the other hand, i'm not sure that - to my eyes - it is a positive evolution.
Even if i use a more than 1024 X 768 screen, i find that :
1 - Spliting my little screen (yes i know : shame on me ; i should have a huge one) , is definitly reducing the "widness" of the picture.
2 - A side bar that goes up when i scroll down is of no use when i get down to the half of the page.
So, when i want to go back, i : "Please use your browser's BACK button to return to the page that brought you here." as you wrote on your homepage picture.
By the way, i'll get use to it one day and (did i mention that i'm Français & Raleur) i'll keep your site on the top of my "Pavlov's Reflex Site's Short List" just because it is so good to read all those topics you're proposing. And this is alsoe for the good (quote : excellent) DVDs you're producing. (Still have to order volume 15...)
Thank's for it anyway.
Jérôme.
-
Just one more question :
What'is "RSS feed" ?
-
Have a look here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format))
-
Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.
I'm a big fan of Web 2.0, usability, standards, the whole lot. But c'mon, you're suggesting LL should be able to be read on a wireless device?
No.
-
Have a look here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format))
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Got it thank you. Looks nice, when i become able to get it (subscription button gets me to a strange languages for the moment).
Thanks again.
Jérôme.
-
Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.
No.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lighten up Francis! LOL
-
Nice one Michael,
The new desing looks great and makes navigation a fair bit easier. No probs with the viewing size here...
-
Still too wide for 1024...
-
Ad hominem really is the popular way to do it these days, I see.
You are obviously referring to your own original statement:
The gibes others make at 800x600 are tasteless and inconsiderate
If you light a match, expect a flame.
-
Pom is correct. Here is a screen shot from my PC set to 1600x1200:
(http://daystarvisions.com/Pix/Misc/LLprob.jpg)
The bottom scrollbar in the browser window indicates that IE is unable to proportionally reduce the width of the green and black columns to fit the current window width (a generous 1053 pixels). In order to view this page as intended the viewer is required to abandon browser side bars and/or maximize the browser window; that's not the case for any other professionally-done site I frequent.
-
I love the new site! Perfect at 1920 X 1200 .....
-
You are obviously referring to your own original statement:
If you light a match, expect a flame.
You are obviously unaware of the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem". It means "directed at the man". I was attacking your argument, not you.
You were attacking me, not my argument.
And no, I don't usually expect flames here, and since it appears that what I wrote only provokes you into that, I'll leave now.
-
Hey -
I like the fonts and colors of the new CSS design on the homepage, but what is the intended viewing size? 1024x768 cuts off the site. It's fine on my main editing machine, but on the web browsing machine - which I run at a lower resolution, The site is too large...
Thanks,
Joe DeVico
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I certinly enjoyed the old site more then the new one. Poor move Michael.
-
I think your last statement is best summed up by the following phrase:
"English is a difficult language"
I understand the meaning of Ad Hominem quite well, and no, it does not mean to attack the argument as you suggest:
Ad Hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
If you want to attack me, fine. If you want to attack my argument, that's fine too. But by calling the arguments/opinions of me and others on this discussion board "tasteless and inconsiderate" is clearly failure on your part to see a much larger picture.
I appreciate your comments as long as they are comments. But an insulting is not the same as commenting, and will likely win you no fans here, sir.
-
Pom is correct. Here is a screen shot from my PC set to 1600x1200:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What version browser are you using? Neither my FF1.x, 2.x nor IE 6.x or 7.x render that wide. It all looks just fine (as of right now, maybe not when you took your snap).
-
Looks like an IE window *squints*
-
Yup, scrollbars here to, in both FF and IE, but only on the home page. But the thing is that there's nothing on the home page that requires forcing this width (yet anyway). In fact it's just wasting a wide gutter to the right of the green nav bar. Perhaps the a redesign of the home page is coming which will better utilize the space in which case I can live with the nuisance, but if not, why force it?
- DL
-
but only on the home page
Hi, Don: that's what I thought for a while too; but then I went exploring - as for example here (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/DMD.shtml) and here (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml).
Nevertheless, so many pages do work correctly, that I suspect there is a single code conflict that only crops up under certain circumstances.
-
We think its the red line spacer causing the prob - it'll be fixed in due course . . .
-
We think its the red line spacer causing the prob - it'll be fixed in due course . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yup, those lines are not <hr> but long lines of underscores. Was ok til the left navbar was added.
- DL
-
Have a look here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format))
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I noticed that the Wikipedia page you reference does fit correctly and has no scroll bar at the bottom of my IE broswer window.
Your home page does have a small horizontal scroll bar. Maybe the width of the navigation cell is a good place to cut some pixels on either side.
I like the new look so far.
-
Michael:
couple of observations - a left sided menu means that you always waste the left side of the screen. As this disappears when you scroll down - it serves no better purpose than the one at the top which at least didn't cut down the real estate.
Second, when I went to vidcasts the screen was blank. Figured out to scroll down and found the relevent text but looks like there's a minor bug here.
Just checked the stats on my website and 5% of the viewers are using screens of 800X600. I'm viewing on 1024X768 and everything fits just fine - using windows xp here at work with Firefox - though I'd prefer to not have the left menu space.
Bound to be some teething problems - well done for making the effort to move forward.
George
-
One more comment for linux using both firefox and konqueror, I had to do a shift reload to get the site to work right. I was getting just the new html and not the new css, so the left bar showed up above all the other text making the site look really weird. You may want to add that to your list of hints, and it may be worth making a png screenshot of what it is supposed to look like linked so if people think something is weird they could check the "correct" interpretation.
-
The site is much faster and even works well on my phone (Blackberry) which I often use to check the "Whats new" page.
The Itunes link for subscribing to the videopods does not work in Safari and only kind off with Mozilla on a PC (you have to hit the first link http://feeds.feedburner.com/luminous-landscape (http://feeds.feedburner.com/luminous-landscape) which takes you to a page where a second link http://feeds.feedburner.com/luminous-landscape?format=pcast (http://feeds.feedburner.com/luminous-landscape?format=pcast) works)
Thanks again for all the hard work that the Luminous Team is putting into the new site, I really value this site and the DVD's are just the best.
Eoghan
-
Michael - one thing would really help on the RSS feed - add a title to the what's new after the date as many RSS readers pick up a summary title in their table of contents. For example, today's could be:
November 14, 12006 - New website design launched
Overall, it looks like a great improvement!
Lyle
-
I really like the new design! Clean and easy to navigate, and the addition of RSS is very welcome.
Great work!
-
I liked the old one better.
that green bar is distracting. Now your left eye has different EV value than right eye so it confuses brainon where to set the exposure.
Remember, wewant to see the content against the background and now we have two dramaticallydifferent backgrounds to deal with.
In the long run, I rthink people will find this gives them a headache.
And it is not like the navigation stays on the screen.
And the reason for fixing was??
Victor
-
I don't like lateral bars.
They uselessly eat too much space.
In the former layout you had text from the right to the left of the screen. Now you loss a 15% or 20% of space with an empty green bar.
-
If the navigation followed the user as one scrolled down the page, would this be more useful? I've seen this done before, but am not aware if it's a technique which all browsers support.
Example here (using a horizontal menu): DHTML Scrolling Menu (http://dhtml-menu.com/dhtml-samples/menu1448.html)
-
If the navigation followed the user as one scrolled down the page, would this be more useful? I've seen this done before, but am not aware if it's a technique which all browsers support.
Example here (using a horizontal menu): DHTML Scrolling Menu (http://dhtml-menu.com/dhtml-samples/menu1448.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The bigger issues are wasted real estate and the difficulty in focusing on the content
the green bar is really bad news. with or without the menu
-
The bigger issues are wasted real estate and the difficulty in focusing on the content
the green bar is really bad news. with or without the menu
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What would you suggest?
The old horizontal jump menu system was functional, but at the cost of aesthetics.
While a horizontal dropdown menu might be more aesthetically pleasing, as LL continues to grow, it could become a jumbled mess at the top, or in terms of shrinking to fit smaller screens, a real nightmare. If it did work initially, wouldn't the focus then turn to the length of the article and excessive scrolling?
Then there's the camp who might suggest splitting articles into multiple pages to limit page length and vertical scrolling. A quick glance at the Tutorials section alone suggests many billable hours of reformatting. In the end, would this really be effective, or would visitors become disenchanted with having to navigate several pages?
It's a real tough call any way you look at it given the size and scope of Michael's site. And in the end, I guess we need ot keep in mind just that--it's Michael's site, and he's free to do with it as he wishes.
I'm sure I won't agree with every design choice he makes during the revision, as I'm sure I won't be alone. But I do think he's sincerely trying to bring LL up to date, with the rss and vodcast features.
To quote Jeff Schewe's often used response to criticisms of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom...
"It's a Beta, people!"
-
I find it surprising that a site dedicated to excellence in photographic imagery and capture can be so pig ugly. The old site was a bit clunky but this new version is even more unattractive. What an odd and uneven mix of colours LL contains. And 3 different layouts/styles to various sections.
It looks more 1998 rather than 1995. Which is progress of sorts.
And having reverse text and a page design that expands to fit any monitor, no matter how wide is a good way to end up with 'A how not to do design' website. Lots of good stuff to read, yet appaling readability.
As I don't like people who criticise without offering solutions.
Limit max page width, reading overlong sentences is difficult and reverse text is rarely used and for good reason, as it is so hard on the eyes.
On the subject of colour please find a selection of colours that work together. Now that you've implemented CSS, all you have to do is tweak the style sheet the whole site references and you're done.
-
I don't like the new design, I'm sorry to say. I don't see what the nav bar on the left really achieves, other than to clash with the main body and take up space. It does not matter that much as the site retains its excellent content, its just packaged in an less than ideal design.
Quentin
-
I like it.
-
Sorry, but I wouldn't trust anybody who chose this colour scheme to detect a magenta cast in a snowstorm....
It certainly doesn't do the photos any favours.
Still. It is still better than Digital Outback - that it so bad that it is almost impressive. This guy (http://www.borat.tv/) was clearly inspired by it, but despite a good effort he didn't quite get there. And whilst I'm on the topic, Alain Briot's site.... this guy went to ART school ? Really ??? Clearly he didn't skip kitsch 101.
My suggestion would be to go back to basics. Black on white, simple navigation bar. The site navigation is not actually all that complex. And limit paragraph width to 30em, which works out at about 60 characters, which is pretty much a standard for legibility.
-
Good Day Michael,
Regarding the new LL site layout: IMO, you should enlarge the home page image and remove the video journal ad above it and instead place LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE above the image (in large geen letters). Furthermore, there should be nothing below image except the usual image description.
Everything on the left stays as is.
just a thought,
jj
-
Thanks everyone for your input. As someone noted, this is still a work in progress.
And, as the chiche goes – you can please some of the people some of the time... etc.
Michael
-
I like it and think it's a good start. It's probably already in the plans, but I would suggest javascript submenu pullouts or expansions on the left nav bar to make drilling even easier.
- DL
-
I like it and think it's a good start.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, its a good start.
-
The new site layout looks a lot better than the old layout. Thanks for keeping up the good work! I really enjoy reading your site a lot.
Here are a few thoughts without any particular order.
it is a mere coincidence that it displays in a browser at all (e.g. there is more than one html root element on the start page).
- the navigation leaves the screen when one scrolls down. There are ways to fix that (e.g. via CSS)
- viewing the home page photograph requires the back button to get back on the main page. I guess, a viewer rather expects a link to a gallery of past home page images.
- "What's new" is in a small column that makes it tall and wastes a lot of space (at least on Firefox)
- The welcome greeting is not on the main page if opened with 1280x1024. You have to scroll down to read it.
- Two screens down, I learn that the best way to utilize this site is the subject index. However, in the navigation at the right, there is no subject index listed. If it is that important, why is it missing from the navigation?
- the understanding series uses a table, recent articles are shown as lists. Especially the table is hard to read because of all those horizontal lines.
- e.g. on the video journal page: there are plenty of different styles used for text: regular, italics, bold, bold italics, bold italics with different color, bold with different color. The same applies to the main page. The section below recent highlights uses regular underlined and italics underlined to indicate links. Above, links are marked as italics underlined.
- there's no image of you on the contact page. Why not just reuse that of the workshop page?
But frankly, I'd be happier if you spent more time producing new episodes of the video journal than fixing those issues above
-
The new look works very well on my screen, but ...
... it is now very hard to print. I am on these users who print longer articles and read them in the train. With the old design, printing was easy. Now with the new design, the right part of the articles are cut off, I need to print the articles in landscape orientation.
Therefore, I have a suggestion:
Put the green navigation side to the right of the screen. Most people using the mouse with the right hand move the mouse automatically to the right, when they would like to put it out of the way. Additionally, it will solve the printing issue (on the print-out, the navigation bar does not really add something and may be cut off) and for those ones using smaller resolution screens.
Regards
Bernd
-
The new look works very well on my screen, but ...
... it is now very hard to print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the site is dynamically generated (I believe the nav bar at least is added dynamically), it shouldn't be too hard to put a "printable version" link on article pages that leaves off the nav bar.
- DL
-
LL is a wonderful resource, however it is presented.
I have to admit, I don't like the new side bar, both because of the colour and the use of screen real estate. The colour is probably the bigger issue (like a distracting highlight, I can't take my eye off it). Maybe this is only because it's new.
My 2 cents. Love the site in any case.
Arthur
-
Hi All
I thought I might add my thoughts about the new design.
First of all I'm a professional web developer so it's part of my job to keep with the latest thinking on design/usability/accessibility (not that that necessarily makes me any kind of expert).
I'm not going to comment too much on the visual design as to a certain extent that is a matter of taste. The LL visual design has never been much to my taste but plenty of others seem to like it; half a dozen of one and 6 of the other.
However, whatever your taste in design, the new site (and probably the old) breaks a number of well supported usability principles. These are not matters of taste, rather they are principles drawn up from thousands of hours of testing with real people in real world scenarios by experts. I've done a fair amount of testing myself with my intranet and internet sites and have seen nothing to dispute these principles: employ them intelligently and people can understand and use your site easily; break them and there are usually difficulties.
Home page
1. When you land on a home page, you need to be able to orientate yourself instantly.
- That usually means a horizontal banner that holds the site name, perhaps
supported by an explanatory sentence or two.
- This needs to be at the top of every page. Hiding the logo/title on the side bar doesn't work.
- The welcome message is below the fold of the page on my 21inch monitor. This is design disaster
2. Navigation/search
-Horizontal menu for primary navigation supported by a sidebar for secondary navigation. This is now a de facto standard. It can be broken of course, but generally unless there is a compelling reason to do so, using a different scheme worsens findability.
- Having a search box rather than a search link on every page is a huge usability improvement. But it would be better at the top right of the horizontal banner. It's a ded facto standard and where 98% of people expect to find it. You can put it elsewhere but it is reduces usability.
3. Readability
- The text is far too wide. People are most comfortable with text that is about 12 words or so wide. Very wide text is tiring to read and it is difficult to find your place again after you turn away for a gulp of tea. On my screen the test can be 30 words across - far too wide.
- Dark text on a light background is easier to read - there are years of usability test data to support this.
- Centre justification - fine for restaurant menus and posters but not for web pages.
4. Advertising
Obviously you need to advertise the video journal. But putting it in a box at the top of the page is a problem. Experienced surfers simply mentally blank out anything that has the appearance of a banner ad. It is better to make a feature of it using styling that doesn't look like a commercial banner ad.
One could go on (with more or less any site actually) but I'll stop now. All site design is a compromise but there are good practice guidelines gleaned from hard experience that you break at your peril.
Hopefully some food for thought...
Regards
Dave
-
If the site is dynamically generated (I believe the nav bar at least is added dynamically), it shouldn't be too hard to put a "printable version" link on article pages that leaves off the nav bar.
- DL
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=86073\")
Using CSS you can have a print version that is called up when printing, which bins all the non relevent stuff, so no need for a link to Printable version.
Whoever did this site is not too hot on how to best implement CSS it seems.
Avisit to the Zen Garden is in order!
[a href=\"http://www.csszengarden.com/]http://www.csszengarden.com/[/url]
The home page is there for others to make alternative versions of that page and content, just by using CSS. Some very, very impressive design to be found there and the book [of the site] should be in every web designers library.
-
Using CSS you can have a print version that is called up when printing, which bins all the non relevent stuff, so no need for a link to Printable version.
Actually, if you just set "media: screen" on the main stylesheet, it will ignore it for print, and quite possibly print out something relatively palatable. If you're lucky.
-
2 - A side bar that goes up when i scroll down is of no use when i get down to the half of the page.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, the left side bar permanently reduces available screen space, whether the navigation is visible or not.
If the menus could be placed along the top, then site *content* could utuilize the full screen width. In my opinion, that would be better use of screen real estate.
Anyow, as always, thanks so much for LL.
Dan
-
We're considering various page layout options. Stay tuned.
Michael
-
We're considering various page layout options. Stay tuned.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that is welcome news to some of us. I also Like Miller's analysis. As a professional he can comment on what works for many not just what we, as individuals, prefer.
One of the main considerations is that I believe most of us come here for content; that is, not because we expect a glitzy 'sell' on something. The ideas are what is persuasive. That said, it is also a site with mis of text and image, so some of the 'dark on white' comments may not fully apply.
I for one found the older (very similar) version restful for my 63 (soon 64!) year old eyes. The dark background really improves images and allows the 'updates' etc to stand out. Thegreen bar really jars now.
In the end, I suggest it is the usabilityy features as much as aesthetic that drive our preferences here.
Anyway, as usually, Michael, you have taken a deliberate and thoughtful approach, rather than rushing anything. The same likely holds for considering these comments, except
you WILL be giving more weight to the 'mature' resoponses, yes?
regards
Victor
-
In the end, I suggest it is the usabilityy features as much as aesthetic that drive our preferences here.
Anyway, as usually, Michael, you have taken a deliberate and thoughtful approach, rather than rushing anything. The same likely holds for considering these comments, except
you WILL be giving more weight to the 'mature' resoponses, yes?
regards
Victor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I, too, found Dave Millier's analysis right on the mark. So add another 'mature' vote (67 year-old eyes.)
Eric
-
Also, the left side bar permanently reduces available screen space, whether the navigation is visible or not.
If the menus could be placed along the top, then site *content* could utuilize the full screen width. In my opinion, that would be better use of screen real estate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For text pages there's usually excess width available anyway. On my site I just suppress the left nav bar in image galleries where you've got better use of the space, but leave the menus there otherwise.
- DL
-
FWIW, without wading through 4 pages, at first it didn't fit my work monitor and now it does
-
Many of the pages now fit on my 1600x1200 monitor, but some still require horizontal scrolling. Two examples:
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml)
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml)
-
Many of the pages now fit on my 1600x1200 monitor, but some still require horizontal scrolling. Two examples:
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/matting.shtml)
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Curious. What browser are you using for this (on what OS) ... and did you set any of your OS or browser display options to "large" or anything along those lines?
-
Curious. What browser are you using for this (on what OS) ... and did you set any of your OS or browser display options to "large" or anything along those lines?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IE7 with WinXP. All normal settings. Most pages are ok, but these are two examples.
-
Those two pages work just fine with Opera on my 1600x1200 screen (using XP pro.) I suspect IE is the culprit (as usual.) I keep several browsers on my system and use them as needed. My preferences are, in order: Opera 8.54 (waiting for version 9.10 to get the bugs out), Firefox 2.0, Netscape 8.1; and (for the most wilfully misbehaving websites) IE 6 (I'll wait for more bugs to be out of 7 before I subject my system to it.)
Eric
-
I have (and use) different systems and some of older ones have resolution at 800x600 and I have to scroll the page horizontally to read the articles. Which make the site 'painful' to use on them.
Also I am a web designer and I make sure my designs display without horiz. scrolling for 800x600 because too many peoples are still using that size. Peoples have told me that they avoid sites that 'force' them to scroll horizontally.
Another thing is when I print an article, in this case 'Understanding Polarizers' article the right part is cut-off so I cannot even read the printed version. To have a readable version I had to save the whole page on my system, load it in Dreamweaver and fix it so that it print correctly. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it all the time.
I'm using Firefox on Window 2000/XP. Opera print it properly. However I uses Firefox almost exclusively. Opera is installed only on a test machine (800x600 res.)
-
Wow, I almost thought that I came to the wrong site. I like the toolbar on the left.