New website design

wayneL · 2 May 2008

Kremmen said:
Firstly, to "optimise" is fine. Making it lousy for anything less is not optimising and (as shown by other sites) it's not necessary.

Secondly, you're totally missing the point with those stats. I run a screen resolution higher than 1024x768 too. But I have a number of other windows open for other applications and never run my browser in full-screen mode. It's called multi-tasking. I've seen polls suggesting that about 50% of users run their browsers full-screen. For the other 50%, the screen resolution is totally irrelevant except as an upper limit.

Do you have stats on what size people's browser window is? Even then, that would be misleading, as users will be making their browser window bigger on this site precisely because it works so poorly otherwise.

Not too many of the major sites that I visit, including MSM sites have a fluid width setup, most are fixed width.

Personally, I hate fluid width as the reading area becomes too wide, making it difficult to concentrate. This is the reason print media uses columns, it increases readership. Fluid width would compromise those who use the full screen for their browser.

IMO

It's Snake Pliskin · 2 May 2008

wayneL said:
Not too many of the major sites that I visit, including MSM sites have a fluid width setup, most are fixed width.

Personally, I hate fluid width as the reading area becomes too wide, making it difficult to concentrate. This is the reason print media uses columns, it increases readership. Fluid width would compromise those who use the full screen for their browser.

IMO

Fixed width is best. There is nothing more annoying than a site which has the width of a football field.

Good work Joe. I wish you all the best.
Cheers.

prs · 5 May 2008

Hi Joe Blow
I haven't had much input of late probably due to work and also the slump in share prices. I like the changes very much, well done.

Kremmen · 5 May 2008

It's Snake Pliskin said:
There is nothing more annoying than a site which has the width of a football field.

Then don't use your browser full-screen! Set it to the size you like to view ... and properly designed web sites will fit that.

wayneL · 5 May 2008

Kremmen said:
Then don't use your browser full-screen! Set it to the size you like to view ... and properly designed web sites will fit that.

So a fixed width website isn't properly designed?

Better tell all the big mainstream media companies then.

Happy · 6 May 2008

Kremmen said:
Then don't use your browser full-screen! Set it to the size you like to view ... and properly designed web sites will fit that.

Being rather computer challenged, I would not have idea how to do that?

I use IE

Trembling Hand · 7 May 2008

Very nice Joe. All is well in my world again.

sam76 · 7 May 2008

Just a heads up there, Joe.

Some partner links don't work.

I've been trying to check out the beefed up Toureg for the last couple of days but been unable to open the link.

Cheers

Joe Blow · 7 May 2008

sam76 said:
Just a heads up there, Joe.

Some partner links don't work.

I've been trying to check out the beefed up Toureg for the last couple of days but been unable to open the link.

Hi Sam,

That link should work. I don't actually determine where that one goes, someone else does that. Try it again, perhaps on a different PC, and if it still doesn't work let me know.

Joe Blow · 7 May 2008

Trembling Hand said:
Very nice Joe. All is well in my world again.

Yes, I think the 700 pixel thumbnails are working nicely.

Kremmen · 7 May 2008

wayneL said:
So a fixed width website isn't properly designed?

Better tell all the big mainstream media companies then.

No, a fixed width web site whose main content is text in a single area isn't properly designed.

Big newspapers are trying to create a look online that's similar to their printed form. That means columns. The easy way for them to get items to keep in proportion is to use a fixed size, because they are trying to balance photos with text. If you use a small browser window, they are a pain to navigate because you're scrolling both ways all the time. If you use a really big window, there's tons of white space all around the outside and it looks bloody silly. Yes, they've sacrificed usability for appearance.

A bulletin board site which doesn't have multiple columns of data has absolutely no need to even consider that compromise. (aka mistake #9) As I said, look at Flyertalk. Same software as this. Lovely and usable at any resolution.

wabbit · 7 May 2008

If you use a non-IE browser, you can over-ride the applied styles to set whatever width you like; either globally, or for particular sites.

For example, I view ASF at 100% of my screen width on my 1024x768 monitor... no wasted white space for me!

wabbit

jtb · 8 May 2008

Joe Blow said:
Yes, I think the 700 pixel thumbnails are working nicely.

Yeah.

Didn't realise how much I preferred the old way until logging on tonight.

OK....................... change is bad and I'm a Luddite.

Anychance we can get the Southern Cross up in the header too Joe?

Still looks a bit UJ/English imo

New website design

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

It's Snake Pliskin

prs

prs

Kremmen

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Happy

Trembling Hand

Can be found on the bid

sam76

Joe Blow

Administrator

Joe Blow

Administrator

Kremmen

wabbit

www.wabbit.com.au

jtb

Similar threads

New website design

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

prs

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Can be found on the bid

Administrator

Administrator

www.wabbit.com.au

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency