New look

Off Topic?

 

That's quite unclear. That is, it's clear what you prefer, but not clear which is "better for viewers," plural. I worked for a few companies as a web designer and user-interface designer and found that both fixed width and fluid width implementations led to mixed reviews. All else held equal, fluid width wasn't clearly more popular. It's not just a question of "what is easier for site-designers"...some things just can't be done with fixed width.

Yeah, that was my suggestion, too. I don't want only a very wide fixed width, since it goes off my browser window...but since there's a narrow fixed width layout, I think it would be a good idea for the "wide version" to be quite wide.

 

link?

 

Same here, minus the 30 inch part. I prefer to have my browser small and have posts read like a book page, and to be able to see the rest of my screen and other browsers. The only time my monitor only has one thing viewable is when I am watching a 1080/720 movie or playing a game.

 

Yeah, that's how I like it too.

 

the check box option kicks ass on my 19inch

 

Looks silly on my 24 inch 1920 by 1200 monitor, fine on my 15 inch 1200 by 800 laptop, and great on my 10 inch 1000 by 600 netbook. On my ZN5 mobile browser it looks the same when I have it set on "squish" so everything appears on one long page, as I can't see any borders. However, it does load significantly faster on my phone like this for some reason.


Edit:

After playing with the checkbox, the website looks much better on the 24 inch monitor. And theres no point using it on anything smaller (that I have).

 

Very nice! I was joking about the off topic thing man. You guys keep workin your magic!

 

I normally don't even use my 24 inch monitor as a browser. I mainly use it for the xbox 360, CAD programs, TV, and when I need lots of real estate when I'm moving things around or writing a paper with tons of sources. It could be the dark red borders act as an optical illusion making the page seem smaller, most other sites with fixed width have much lighter ones.



Edit:

I think the Realgm forums are even thinner than this one. The page doesn't look as silly there however.

Here's an example from some random hockey forum: http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=212. I think it's the lighter, patterned border that makes the difference.

As you pointed out, I don't really use the largest monitor for web browsing anyways, so it makes little practical difference.

 

I don't really mind the smaller screen. The bars are wider than the actual forum on my 23". Also I didn't even notice the banner. It's so high up it's hard to see. With the ad, forum listings, OT breakout, & the stickies...it's basically invisible most of the time.

 

What size and aspect ratio were the monitors used during these user tests? Nearly 100% of all monitors sold these days are wide screen aspect ratio (16:9. or similar). Just a couple years ago, most were 4:3. Also, as prices come down on 22", 23" and 24" monitors, they become much more common. I would think that fluid vs. fixed width user preferences would be greatly influenced by screen size and aspect ratio, and tests conducted today would yield different results than tests conducted even two years ago.

Since a fluid width page automatically adjusts to match the user's monitor (or browser window if running less than full screen), I don't see what the downside is for fluid width pages for the end user. If he has a small screen or small browser window open the fluid page will automatically compensate. But, if he has a large screen the page will take full advantage of his hardware. The problem with fixed width pages is, no one size fits all. So, which fixed width (or widths) do you support? No matter what you chose, it won't be optimal for all users.

BNM

 

Yes. I visit a lot of web sites with tables, spreadsheets, high resolution video, etc. So, I almost always run my browser full width. Keep in mind I have two 24" monitors. So, I can have a full width browser open on one and still see all my applications, email, additional browser window, etc. on the second 24" monitor.

Ironic, isn't it? Now that you can't hardly find a new non-wide screen monitor for sale, more and more web sites are going to fixed width pages. It seems like a cruel hoax by the computer industry - get us all to spend money on new wide screen panels and then refuse to provide content that takes advantages of all that screen real estate.

BNM

 

The downside is that certain types of layouts can't be done. Pixel perfect layouts can't be done (you can't mix pixel-specified sizes and percentage-specified sizes with any sort of reliable results) so that means you can't provide displays that rely on precision. If all you want are square elements that have a very linear relation to one another and no worries about the space between them, then liquid is much better. But if you and your users like/want precisely-engineered layouts, you pretty much have to go fixed width.

For discussion forums, liquid generally works fine because the layouts aren't complicated and it doesn't matter what the spacing is between, say, the post stream section and a sidebar. And I liked the liquid layout fine. I'm not entirely sure what design issues have prompted the designers here to go fixed width but I think several different fixed-widths work out okay (even if not optimal). I don't think it makes the site much worse to use (I've tried it on a wide screen and my usual browsing option, a laptop) and since it's free, I'm pretty understanding if they want to make a compromise for either their own ease of design or to do something they can't do otherwise.

 

Agreed on all counts. I read a lot of online forums. A couple are fixed width, but most are fluid. I greatly prefer the fluid width forums as they require a LOT less scrolling when viewed in a wide screen of reasonable (or exceptional) size. For smaller screens, it doesn't really matter, you'll still have to do a lot of scrolling whether the forum page width is fixed or variable. So, from an end user perspective, on a site like this, what, if any, are the advantages of a fixed page width? I sure can't think of any.

I have no idea what prompted the change from fluid to fixed width pages on this site. As you say, there is certainly no need for precision pixel-percent layouts in a discussion forum. It's their site and they can change the look and feel anyway they wish. But, they asked for input, and frankly the new fixed width layout requires a lot more scrolling up and down for someone with a decent size display panel and really adds nothing of obvious benefit for users of smaller screens. I find all this scrolling tedious and the wide maroonish/brown bars on both sides of the actual content a waste of valuable real estate. That's just my opinion and the reasons I can't stand fixed width pages. Like so many things in our society, they cater to the least common denominator and don't take full advantage of valuable resources (in this case my 24" wide screens and my precious time).

BNM

 

Well, I believe most dual monitors are aimed at corporate businesses and people who game.

 

By the way, when I have the "wide" box checked, every page loads first in the narrow mode and then re-sizes to "wide". This further increases load times and detracts from the enjoyment of browsing this site. The old fluid pages only loaded once - in the correct aspect ratio every time. So, now I basically have two options, teeny, tiny narrow pages (like reading a newspaper that's one column wide), or load times that have increased by a factor of 2x. I find both options greatly inferior to the old fluid width page style.

BNM

 

You must be using dial-up, then. I tested that and it flicks to the wider mode almost instantly.