x
This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. More info. That's Fine
HPC:Factor Logo 
 
Latest Forum Activity

would like either fit-to-width or fixed-width of 1024 for the HPC:Factor site

Jacobi Page Icon Posted 2010-04-18 7:16 AM
#
Avatar image of Jacobi
Factorite (Elite)

Posts:
114
Status:
I spend a lot of time scrolling sideways to read posts...
After moving from a legacy-ratio PC to a widescreen format in order to see several files open at once on my desktop, I'm back to square 1 when viewing this site...

It would be great if it could be more friendly to the user's hardware.

It could either be a standard fixed-width of 1024 pix, (sorry, netbook users) or, much better, it could be a variable-width that automatically reformats content to the width of your browser window? ...Right now, it is neither.
Although I guess it does resize to the maximum width, (essential for small-screen HPC's and netbooks), and asking for a site to reformat to a window that the user has reduced on their own laptop is asking for the impossible.

I really need to keep some real estate on my widescreen for other apps besides my browser, without having to use scroll sliders when reading posts on the forum. Has anyone else made similar comments, and is there an upcoming fix?
Could there be any possibility of choice when you login, between a fixed-width display and the current type?

Thanks for your understanding

Edited by Jacobi 2010-04-18 7:38 AM
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
C:Amie Page Icon Posted 2010-04-18 9:43 AM
#
Avatar image of C:Amie
Administrator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
15,662
Location:
United Kingdom
Status:
erm, the forum posts do fit to width and the site does load on 1024x768 without x-scrolling in both MSIE and Firefox.

The only time that they don't fit on XGA is when people post images to the board that cause cell enlargement.



(ie.gif)



(ff.gif)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments ie.gif (91KB - 0 downloads)
Attachments ff.gif (79KB - 0 downloads)
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
Rich Hawley Page Icon Posted 2010-04-18 12:11 PM
#
Avatar image of Rich Hawley
Global Moderator
H/PC Guru

Posts:
7,032
Location:
USA
Status:
Yep, mine all work fit-to-width...and I like it!
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
Jacobi Page Icon Posted 2010-04-20 4:34 AM
#
Avatar image of Jacobi
Factorite (Elite)

Posts:
114
Status:
I tried to correct the title later to be more specific, but the system would not let me, sorry it caused confusion.
Great pics.
Of course I agree the real fit-to-width is great for many people, but as your browser was running fullscreen, then what it showed does not address the issue as explained below.
you only showed and answered a question taken out of context : "reformats content to the width of your browser window?" which as the rest of my post explained better, meant the window the user has chosen on their PC, including if preferred, a reduced width window?, -- not the maximum, fullscreen width that your browser window can have! - the latter being the only way the real meaning of fit-to-width applies in the current technology. (I know - sigh).
However, I wrote the post to explore the issue of very long text lines viewed in a high-resolution widescreen when using fit-to-width, (I would like to send you a screenshot of this post on a 1900x1200 screen, how do attach it?) --

On my screen at the native resolution of 1900x1200, the following sentenced quoted from my earlier post FITS ON A SINGLE LINE
I really need to keep some real estate on my widescreen for other apps besides my browser, without having to use scroll sliders when reading posts on the forum. Has anyone else made similar comments, and is there an upcoming fix?


That's lot of movement on your eyes, to read this single line from left to right, but more than that,
Can you imagine how much I have to scroll, to read each line of a post, if I reduce the width to the browser window a bit so as to be able to use some of the space on my desktop for other apps windows that I have open?
As some web design technologies allow the user to change the skin of a site on the fly, (via css etc). I was just dreaming if it would be possible to have this here. (However, while this is getting more common for flexible-width styles, I have not yet seen it where the user can choose between flexible and fixed-width skins on the fly at will) - but I just had to ask, because... why not dream of it?
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
C:Amie Page Icon Posted 2010-04-20 10:59 AM
#
Avatar image of C:Amie
Administrator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
15,662
Location:
United Kingdom
Status:
I don't think that you're making your argument very well here, because I'm still hazy over what you're asking for.

Your first post said it could be a standard width of 1024 pixels, which it is. Most sites these days do not cater for sub-XGA screens.

I have a 1920x1200 screen so you don't need to give me any screenshots.

If you want to scale the site's fixed width XGA content to fill a larger browser window you can do that in the control panel. The site had dynamic skins until I released v2.5; the feature still exists but I haven't written / drawn any templates other than vs-v2.5-green.

As much as I would like it to be, this site cannot be fully generated using XHTML/CSS because it would render Windows CE completely unsupported. I have to try and meet the needs of different user groups somewhere and this is a compromise.

Like I said, you aren't coming over very clear in what you're asking for. But if I hazard a guess, I think what you're really asking me to do is to allow the site to run delimited under XGA: of put simply you want me to reduce the size of the sites header bar to allow this.
If that is indeed what you are asking, then sorry but I am not prepared to do that it would mean having to redesign the UI.
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
Jacobi Page Icon Posted 2010-04-20 6:10 PM
#
Avatar image of Jacobi
Factorite (Elite)

Posts:
114
Status:
Quote
C:Amie - 2010-04-20 5:59 AM

this site cannot be fully generated using XHTML/CSS because it would render Windows CE completely unsupported


very interesting - what is the technology you are using, to insure you can accommodate Windows CE users?
does it apply also to WM5 and WM6?

my topic has gotten quite confusing... I apologize for the lack of clarity in my earlier posts?
Believe me I certainly understand that redesigning the site skin or adding features to its delivery system are tons less important than all the time given to users in this forum in the form of tech support! It is so helpful to people who either want to optimize the use of their current devices, or inform themselves before buying a new one.

I'll try to rephrase my question later as I have other urgencies, but this thread really interests me: is there a posting deadline for no activity, by which you would close the thread? Id like to make sure I post again before that.
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
C:Amie Page Icon Posted 2010-04-20 10:09 PM
#
Avatar image of C:Amie
Administrator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
15,662
Location:
United Kingdom
Status:
It's called HTML CSS and XHMTL rendering in PIE isn't fantastic, if it were ported to CSS 2 as I'd like it would appear as an undefined mass of text.

Don't know about WM, this isn't a site that has anything to do with WM at this time.

Usual forum rules apply, we don't like threads dug up after 3 months.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy to entertain ideas but apart from emergency work development projects historicall can only happen twice a year: I reserve time over the summer and over xmas. Although this year any summer projects may be shelved too.

Going under XGA requires a new UI design and most users don't need that. Sidebar content needs at a minimum 210 pixels and we have always have a 640 wide image policy for the reviews, editorials and CESD section which takes us to 850 pixels. Currently 720 pixels is used for the width limited view (930 inc side bar) factor in the browser scroll bar, margin or two and a few costmetic hairlines to block things out and you're at the 1024 browser limit.

The next size standard to develop to would be to cater for 800x600 users as I used to for ce320. As you can see if we ignore everything current content requires 850 pixels or we don't have any side bar navigation or side panel data and the entire site becomes a single column.

That may have been acceptable in 1992, but it isn't in 2010.
 Top of the page
Quote Reply
hpc:factor« View previous thread · HPC:Factor Related Discussion · View next thread »
Jump to forum:
Seconds to generate: 0.142 - Cached queries : 63 - Executed queries : 10
Server Time now is: Sunday, 9 May 2021 - 3:5