Planet Descent
Community => Mess Hall => Topic started by: -<WillyP>- on June 09, 2010, 09:52:57 AM
-
Just curious, I'm still working on the test site for upgrading to SMF2, and noticed that at smaller view-ports the header overlaps the menu-bar. So an informal poll of what sizes people normally run their browser at.
Example: My monitor is 1600 X 1200 px, and I usually maximize the browser, although sometimes to read wide text I'll reduce it to about half width to make it easier to read.
-
My current monitor is 1024 x 768 and I maximize my browser.
Although, my new monitor will be 1600 x 900 and I will maximize my browser there as well.
-
1440x900 or nothing for me.
-
... noticed that at smaller view-ports the header overlaps the menu-bar.
At work I have a 1280x1024 monitor, but I typically keep my browser window at 600x400 or smaller.
At that size, the header and menubar are still fine.
-
1280x1024, maximized, with minimal toolbars (chrome without link bar). For the new site, the panes for the different forums should be made a LOT smaller. The current images (for post read/unread) are way too big. Most sites I view can display ~15 forum sections, 20 if the descriptions are short and there are no subforums. PD.net peaks at 10.
-
what size browser? I main resolution is 1366x768. Is that not the same in a browser? or am I missing what you're asking?
-
Not everyone always keeps their browser maximized (e.g. me, when I'm at work, watching a build or a test run).
-
1440x900 and maximized
-
1920x1080 maximized.
-
mine is always maximized, but not a full screen, like when hitting F11.
-
mine is always maximized, but not a full screen, like when hitting F11.
Same here...
I used to use IE until I saw how much better Firefox worked on a friend's laptop... now I use Firefox for everything.
-
... noticed that at smaller view-ports the header overlaps the menu-bar.
At work I have a 1280x1024 monitor, but I typically keep my browser window at 600x400 or smaller.
At that size, the header and menubar are still fine.
Wow, 600? at 640 this is what I see:
-
You're using the lame style that's why :P
Try changing the header to using a fixed size instead of a % as I think you're using. Maybe that will help?
-
I'm at 1366x768 and I prefer it maxed, as like everything else I do.
-
Re-checked the size. My browser at work is occasionally as small as around 700x500, which still looks fine:
(http://s1.postimage.org/9Y7sS.jpg) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gx9Y7sS)
-
Foil, He's asking about how things look for the "test site" which is a "beta test" of the upgrade this site will soon be getting.
Here's the path to it: http://www.test.planetdescent.net/index.php (http://www.test.planetdescent.net/index.php)
See if that sizes correctly for the view sizes you use.
EDIT: Guess I should comment on how it sizes for me while I'm posting here ...
WillyP, My Linux side is usually viewing sites around 800x600 (fit's nicely as a window on a 1280x800 desktop). On my Windows platforms I'm usually viewing maximized (but not the F11 'full screen') and they vary from 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1600x1200, and 2560x1024. All ALL of those platforms that site has viewed nicely for me.
The thing I like the best of the layout of the test site ... It has less wasted space on the left and right of the site's content, less of a "margin" on the left and right which allows for more content in the same browser window.
Personally, I think the site needs to be formatted for good viewing at 800x600 and up (with minimal margins). Anything less than 800x600 would be rarely needed, or only desired by a very few select users.
-
Foil, He's asking about how things look for the "test site" which is a "beta test" of the upgrade this site will soon be getting.
...
See if that sizes correctly for the view sizes you use.
Ah, thanks for the correction.
Yes, there's pretty significant overlap in the header for me at ~700x500.
-
Thanks for the input guys! I'll have to give a little more thought to the layout of the header.
-
Yes, there's pretty significant overlap in the header for me at ~700x500.
Hmmm... I guess that would make you one of the "few select users" I arbitrarily categorized. ;) (no offense, of course)
-
Foil, Did what you see look similar to this?
-
Yes.
Just to clarify: Most of my browser usage is at home, where it's normally at 1440x900 or larger. The only issue is when I have a small window open at work (because I need to watch other things on the screen).
If I'm the only one, don't worry about trying to make changes. An overlapping header isn't going to bother me. :)
-
Ok. Because the logo is part of the background image, the links all work. I'm thinking if I add a dark gradient to the bottom of 'Descent' it'll bump the contrast.
-
Personally I think the current logo and location looks better.
-
Better than what?
-
Than the version on the test site.
-
I have some ideas for the logo on the test site ... Stay tuned. ;)
WillyP, watch out. ;D
-
Than the version on the test site.
Gotcha... you're referring to the logo here. Using the logo from here is a possibility, I wanted to add a little more to it. So the logo grew a bit. There are still some bugs to work out of Tiny Portal, so there is no hurry.
-
I've been meaning to sit down and see if I could put together some kind of classic style PD logo (like PD.com's) but haven't done it yet. Need more time... ::)
-
Great! I'd love to see what you guys can come up with.
Here's the sprite that the logo will get put on.
-
Than the version on the test site.
Gotcha... you're referring to the logo here. Using the logo from here is a possibility, I wanted to add a little more to it. So the logo grew a bit. There are still some bugs to work out of Tiny Portal, so there is no hurry.
Well, you could add the image without changing the text.
-
WillyP,
I'm thinking the logo for the test site might look better on smaller view if we just rearrange the content of the logo. Perhaps something like this.
When I reduced my view to simulate what Foil described, I saw that the user info and user image were overlaid by the logo content ... however there is a "open area" above the user info and if the logo used that area with lower logo content more to the right ... then it wouldn't appear to overlay the user info... at least not as much.
It's a thought.