| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
338
   |
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
To all web designers:
Please can you design all future websites to have auto-orientation for widescreen monitors!
Having all of your content in a 1/3rd column in the center with the remaining 2/3rds of the screen empty is poor design and unnecessary!
In addition, mices' are not cheap! The amount of mouse-wheel-scrolling I get through every day is astounding - and is mainly due to having 2/3rds of content below where it could be!
AND
If you have a pdf that I'm never ever going to print off available for download - please make it landscape! There is no need, once again, for all of this empty space to the right and left, and having to zoom in and then sit 15 feet away, just so the text fits the screen is irritating as hell - especially since I then have to, you guessed it, scroll more, because letter-sized documents end up getting half a page @ full zoom!
Adobe Dreamweaver has this function built into it ffs! Use it!
To the forum browsers:
...anything I missed in this anti-widescreen muti-verse we currently inhabit?
AK
PS: I'm not against 4:3 ratio people, some of my friends still use 4:3 ratio and I consider them very productive members of society who pay their taxes. Some of them have even adopted unwanted kittens.
PPS: I'm not against non-dreamweaver people. Some of my friends tell me they are very nice people who tried to pay their taxes using bitcoins.
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
Stigman Zuwadza
Repercussus
RAZOR Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 15:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
As a user of a 28" screen, using a 1900 x 1200 resolution and as an ex web developer I'm going to have to disagree with you.
It might sound more practical to utilize such a screen size but from the perspective of readability it would be very unfriendly to the user. Having possible text and what not spread out over such a distance makes reading harder.
Over the last 10 years or so the width of a webpage has only increased from 800 pixels to 1000 pixels. In some cases having a webpage size to the screen can be practical but its usually where there is an exceptional amount of information to deliver and is often done very poorly by those that try it.
Even when sites do go for wider they tend to have a left and right panel that will still mean the content in the middle is controlled and of a reasonable size. Aesthetics and readability will probably always win over the practicalities you describe.
These stats (first example I came across): http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp show that people have only really been moving up past the 1000+ pixels for the last 5-6 years ...you might get your wish one-day but I'd hazard a guess and say any content that needs to be read by the user will remain contained to the sizes that are around today.
My tuppence worth. 
Fly safe. o7
CCP: Cloak Hunters - CSM6: Cautiously positive - Dec 2011 Summit - Minutes (pg. 22).
Cloaking Technicalities Explained - CSM7 Town Hall Meeting - May 2012 |
stoicfaux
1531
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fix the obsession with MS Word first. Screen space lost due to left & right margins, page headers & footers, page breaks, menu/ribbon bar, etc.. Even if you put Word into draft mode, you still have the problem that not all graphics/images show up in draft mode.
Seriously, why are we trying to fit a piece of paper on our monitors? Or why aren't our monitors designed to match the size of a piece of paper?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Stigman Zuwadza
Repercussus
RAZOR Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
I remember programming on my BBC Master 128  back in the days and even then the resolution was 320 x 200, ie landscape, to me resolutions have scaled since time began. I say blame the person who can up with the 4:3 ratio. 
Anyways, can't you get software to change the orientation of your screen to portrait? Then you can just turn your screen on its side and voila.
Fly safe. o7
CCP: Cloak Hunters - CSM6: Cautiously positive - Dec 2011 Summit - Minutes (pg. 22).
Cloaking Technicalities Explained - CSM7 Town Hall Meeting - May 2012 |
Webvan
State War Academy
Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 20:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
If you are using firefox, it's [CTRL +] to fit the screen. Works great.
PDF? Don't run it in your browser is my best advice, disable it. PDF is rather... vulnerable, all it's possibilities for macros and embedded objects, data transmission etc. In fact I don't use Adobe reader at all, and definitely not in my web browser, I disabled it long ago. I'd suggest a "safe-mode PDF reader" of some sort. |
Jett0
Surface Warfare
Tribal Band
250
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 01:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
I just use Ctrl + mouse wheel...
Occasionally plays sober |
Kaahles
Retarded Extemely Dangerous
The Unthinkables
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 08:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Stigman Zuwadza wrote:
It might sound more practical to utilize such a screen size but from the perspective of readability it would be very unfriendly to the user. Having possible text and what not spread out over such a distance makes reading harder.
This!
I can't stand websites that span the the text over the entire width of a screen no matter what size. It's such a huge pain in the posterior to actually read and it gets worse the longer the text becomes. That's with me only running 1680x1050 on a 22". Can't even begin to imagine how that must look on a 28" with a higher resolution. I might stop reading all together.
Regarding the remark about PDF... it's a terrible format that needs to die ASAP imho.
|
Sin Pew
Dakini Rising
The Kali Cartel
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 09:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
My browser is usually adjusted in width to fit without horizontal scrollbars on most websites and stretched all the way up, so I can keep a video and IMs on the side without covering them, all fine here.
"haiku are easy,
But sometimes they don't make sense,
Refrigerator." |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
339
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 11:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
V.surprised to learn people have no issues having a website zoomed in fully to fit the screen, yet have issues with a website which would have content fitting the screen.
Contradiction?
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 18:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
I'm running multiple IPS 30 Inch Monitors at 2560 x 1600. Everything looks good. But Gaming is incredible... |
|
|
Tarn Kugisa
Infinite Covenant
Tribal Band
126
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
Doc Severide wrote:I'm running multiple IPS 30 Inch Monitors at 2560 x 1600. Everything looks good. But Gaming is incredible...
Do want
I Endorse this Product and/or Service
Source Recorder-esque tool for EVE |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2321
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ever wonder why newspapers are in columns?
Because we read much faster with shorter lines. Our eyes/brains are best suited for scrolling.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2321
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 22:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:V.surprised to learn people have no issues having a website zoomed in fully to fit the screen, yet have issues with a website which would have content fitting the screen.
Contradiction?
No contradiction there.
Small print running edge-to-edge on a widescreen monitor is going to force your eyes to do a LOT of moving.
Study some graphic design and you'll understand it better :)
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Bommel McMurdoc
East Khanid Trading
Khanid Trade Syndicate
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 22:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Gotta love it when people go "ooooo pretty" and buy things without really understanding what to do with em and blame everything else with "aww man conform to ME!"
I have a large wide screen and I had to modify a few things to minimize the crazy scrolling. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
339
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 08:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:AlleyKat wrote:V.surprised to learn people have no issues having a website zoomed in fully to fit the screen, yet have issues with a website which would have content fitting the screen.
Contradiction? No contradiction there. Small print running edge-to-edge on a widescreen monitor is going to force your eyes to do a LOT of moving. Study some graphic design and you'll understand it better :)
Utter rubbish.
Sitting at the correct distance, I have no issues with text being on a widescreen monitor that fills the screen at 12pt, hell, even 9pt feels fine. Maybe visit optician?
Besides, websites are not all text btw, especially if you have a good web designer, but even if the nature of the web site meant that it had to be text, even then, a two column approach would be wrong???? Why?
Lazy designers using bs stats is bs.
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
Verge of Collapse
786
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:AlleyKat wrote:V.surprised to learn people have no issues having a website zoomed in fully to fit the screen, yet have issues with a website which would have content fitting the screen.
Contradiction? No contradiction there. Small print running edge-to-edge on a widescreen monitor is going to force your eyes to do a LOT of moving. Study some graphic design and you'll understand it better :) Utter rubbish. Sitting at the correct distance, I have no issues with text being on a widescreen monitor that fills the screen at 12pt, hell, even 9pt feels fine. Maybe visit optician? Besides, websites are not all text btw, especially if you have a good web designer, but even if the nature of the web site meant that it had to be text, even then, a two column approach would be wrong???? Why? Lazy designers using bs stats is bs.
Self-absorbed Mac-tard speech detected.
I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies
I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
339
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Self-absorbed Mac-tard speech detected.
Don't own one, can't offer me anything that I can't get from my PC, and Fraps is incompatible.
BoT:
Unless there is a logical reason for it, websites are poorly designed for not using the correct aspect ratio when they design content.
That is, of course, we are all perfectly happy with every website having the same boring layout; with 'home' 'services' 'products' 'history' 'contact' buttons at the top of the page, and then templated content directly beneath it in 4:3 aspect ratio.
And yet...I'll wager that web designers use 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios to work on their 4:3 aspect ratio'd canned templates.
AK
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
You can zoom in/out with windows. Hold the ctrl.
Also webpages for the most part should just be a fixed width....The % screws things up. |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
339
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 09:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kattshiro wrote:You can zoom in/out with windows. Hold the ctrl.
Also webpages for the most part should just be a fixed width....The % screws things up.
Yes, I am aware of be able to zoom in using ctrl+scroll, my point is the text is then too large for normal distance viewing and I have to sit far away from the screen to avoid eye damage looking at 40pt text from one end of the screen to the other.
Websites should have auto orientation for content, and due to lazy idiot web designers whose life consists of using templates and thinking they are being "creative", we have to have underutilised web pages with 2/3rds of the screen empty, and the remaining content off the bottom of the screen.
It's trash.
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2323
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 14:48:00 -
[20] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:Sitting at the correct distance, I have no issues with text being on a widescreen monitor that fills the screen at 12pt, hell, even 9pt feels fine. Maybe visit optician?
Look, you can pop your "it's fine for me" anecdotes all you want, I have science backing me up. Newspapers use columns for a reason. We use 8.5 x 11 / A4 paper in portrait format for a reason. Our books are shaped that way FOR A REASON. And that reason is, our eyes and brains are best suited for reading narrow columns of text.
AlleyKat wrote:Besides, websites are not all text btw, especially if you have a good web designer, but even if the nature of the web site meant that it had to be text, even then, a two column approach would be wrong???? Why?
The reason you shouldn't use multiple columns on a digital document is that it could require scrolling back to the top. As with wide text lines, this slows down reading and causes breaks in flow, resulting in poorer reading comprehension and quite possibly loss of readers.
There have been efforts in the past to build websites that use columns and side scrolling, but people have been resistant to it because it deviates from the norm. It doesn't help that most of those are done by graphic artists and don't really demonstrate how it can be used with text.
AlleyKat wrote:Lazy designers using bs stats is bs.
Ignorant users claiming expertise is hilarious.
Note: I'm not a web designer. I've tinkered a bit and write a couple of blogs, but I'm not invested in this argument as needing to defend anything. I just think you're incredibly wrong.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
|
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2331
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 15:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:Websites should have auto orientation for content, and due to lazy idiot web designers whose life consists of using templates and thinking they are being "creative", we have to have underutilised web pages with 2/3rds of the screen empty, and the remaining content off the bottom of the screen.
If you're such an expert on web design, how about you put together a site to demonstrate how you think it should be done? If the only reason we don't have "auto orientation for content" is because the developers are lazy idiots, then it should be easy for a motivated genius such as yourself to show us how it should be done. Hell, you could make a killing selling templates to the idiots.
Wait...you CAN make websites, right?
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
340
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 19:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:If the only reason we don't have "auto orientation for content" is because the developers are lazy idiots, then it should be easy for a motivated genius such as yourself to show us how it should be done.
No need, I'll let Adobe show you and everyone else how it can be done:
video link
/me does dance
So - there is no real reason for limiting content (in total) to 1/3 of the screen, because text can be put into columns to appease those that have issues with attention spans.
It's more work for developers, which is why I began this thread with a plee, and even used the word 'please', but as far as I can see, web developers need to let their client decide (y'know, the one actually paying them) whether they want to have 2/3rds of the screen empty, or have 2/3rds of the screen actually in use.
If web developers are paying attention to due diligence, they will; if they are lazy and just want to coax their client into using a layout for which they already have4 a template for back at the office, they won't.
Of course, I suppose the idiots are the clients, because they are the ones who must have been suckered into this bs since the beginning of the web.
AK
GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002.
somethingjustgotreal.com |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |