Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Site Design  (Read 20550 times)
joedevico
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


WWW
« on: November 14, 2006, 10:36:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey -

I like the fonts and colors of the new CSS design on the homepage, but what is the intended viewing size? 1024x768 cuts off the site. It's fine on my main editing machine, but on the web browsing machine - which I run at a lower resolution, The site is too large...

Thanks,

Joe DeVico
Logged

Joe DeVico
the PhotoGraphic Design Group
www.photographicdesigngroup.com
www.jdvmusic.com
full time musician - part time photographer
joedevico
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2006, 10:43:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks perfect at 1152x854 - Now I just need my reading glasses....
Logged

Joe DeVico
the PhotoGraphic Design Group
www.photographicdesigngroup.com
www.jdvmusic.com
full time musician - part time photographer
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2006, 10:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Still fine tuning. Should be better on a small screen now.

Michael
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2006, 11:11:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Still fine tuning. Should be better on a small screen now.
Unfortunately still a bit problematic.

Keep in mind that not everybody runs their browser in full-screen mode, and many users enjoy to view their bookmarks or other information in a sidebar.

On the positive side, site navigation just became noticeably better.

Well done!
Logged

Jan
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7002


« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2006, 11:20:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Unfortunately still a bit problematic.

Keep in mind that not everybody runs their browser in full-screen mode, and many users enjoy to view their bookmarks or other information in a sidebar.

On the positive side, site navigation just became noticeably better.

Well done!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I find the design a bit wide - especially the left navigation bar but other than that, the new design is a welcome improvement.

And, there's even a "what's new" RSS feed!

     
« Last Edit: November 14, 2006, 11:21:04 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2006, 11:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

The Home Page should now be viewable on a 800 pixel wide screen without scrolling. Otherwise the whole site is dynamically adjustable to any page width.

Michael
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2006, 11:33:37 AM »
ReplyReply

WHOA!  I was reading an article and hit Refresh and this new design pops up!  Nice!

This looks like the start of something great Michael.
Logged
Andy M
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2006, 12:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Great Michael!  
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2006, 12:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Home Page should now be viewable on a 800 pixel wide screen without scrolling.
Otherwise the whole site is dynamically adjustable to any page width.
No, the pages with text seem to clip at around 1024 pixels total window width, at the default font size.

On the What's New page, this is best verified against the RSS icon.

Tested on the following platform with the following browsers:

Windows XP 64-bit edition

- Microsoft Internet Explorer 6*, requires around 1300 pixels width
- Mozilla Firefox 2.0, changing font sizes in Firefox doesn't resolve the problem.
- Opera 9, same as Firefox 2.0

* January is the expected release time for non-English editions, and although I prefer to run the English version, I've waited with the upgrade.
Logged

Jan
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2006, 12:46:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Who's viewing this at 800x600?!  Isn't 1024x768 the minimum for most monitors made in the past few years?  And aren't LCDs typically running above and beyond that?

I really think we're past the point where we need to lowball our design specs.  Michael, have your web guy take a look at the site stats...what percentage of users view LL running 800x600?

Based on the stats for my site, two years ago 800x600 users accounted for roughly 1% of all the traffic to my site.  Last year, that number dropped to 0.6%.  So far this year I've had one (yes, 1) single user view the site at 800x600.

Do you really need to target 800x600 anymore?
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2006, 12:58:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with ^^^^  100%.  I just redid our site again (every 2 years) and bumped up the min width requirement as well.  The days of catering to the VERY small percentage of people using old-ass hardware is gone.  Cater to the masses.  Good job so far, I'm sure the right side will morph over time to match the excellent look of the new left!
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2006, 01:12:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The site is designed for 1024 width, same as the previous version. I thought that Jani was complaining about the Home Page graphics, which I made smaller.

Making is smaller than 1024 isn't terribly meaningful in today's environment, as has already been pointed out.

Michael
« Last Edit: November 14, 2006, 01:12:51 PM by michael » Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2006, 01:24:08 PM »
ReplyReply

kaelaria,

Your avatar is scaring me.  It's like you want to jump through my screen and poke my eyes out

Tim
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2006, 01:26:22 PM »
ReplyReply

ARRRGH!! BOOGA BOOGA!  LOL
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2006, 02:03:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Making is smaller than 1024 isn't terribly meaningful in today's environment, as has already been pointed out.
Unless, as I've already pointed out, the user isn't running the browser in full screen mode, or the user uses side bars. If you've only been using Internet Explorer, I can see how such usage seems exotic or strange, but it's perfectly commonplace with Mozilla, Firefox and Opera users.

I'm not personally bothered by the requirement of 1030 pixels wide (which is how it turns out with default settings in Camino and Safari on my Mac); since I'm running displays with 1280x1024, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, I feel fairly certain that I won't be seriously inconvenienced in the next few years.

The gibes others make at 800x600 are tasteless and inconsiderate; that's not what it is about at all.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2006, 02:07:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with ^^^^  100%.  I just redid our site again (every 2 years) and bumped up the min width requirement as well.  The days of catering to the VERY small percentage of people using old-ass hardware is gone.  Cater to the masses.  Good job so far, I'm sure the right side will morph over time to match the excellent look of the new left!
Old-ass hardware such as the brand new Sony Ericsson M600, W950 or the Nokia e70?

It's thinking that any display device can meet a certain "minimum requirement" that's "old-ass"; that thinking predates the web, and when the web came, we had to redo our thinking, since we couldn't know what display devices our users had.

Nothing's changed in that regard, only that (X)HTML and CSS now offer far better support for floating design elements to support this multitude of display sizes, as well as the option of different style sheets for different kinds of devices.
Logged

Jan
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2006, 02:13:47 PM »
ReplyReply

lol - I wouldn't want to do any serious web surfing on those!  I'll amend my list - old-ass hardware (old monitors) or silly small-ass screened hardware (of any age)
Logged

RedRebel
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2006, 02:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

As soon I have my new widescreen monitor, you can adjust your sites to 1900x1200 or something...800x600 looks so old fashioned these days  
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2006, 02:33:04 PM »
ReplyReply

jani,

Jakob Nielsen just called.  He told me to tell you there's only room in cyberspace for ONE belittling Mr. Blackwell of Web Design.

I'm a big fan of Web 2.0, usability, standards, the whole lot.  But c'mon, you're suggesting LL should be able to be read on a wireless device?  I can't imagine doing so (for very long anyways).  It's clear Michael has made an educated decision based on feedback/site statistics/advice of his web person.

Maybe you should offer your services in designing for wireless devices to him in exchange for a subscription to the LL Video Journal???  Michael, make sure you include a free pair of bifocals with his subscription....he'll need it if he intends on viewing LL on any of those devices!

Tim
Logged
VentdeSable
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2006, 03:17:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Michael,

Like everybody else, i just discovered your new site's design.

On one hand, it nice to see it alive and evoluting.

On the other hand, i'm not sure that - to my eyes - it is a positive evolution.

Even if i use a more than 1024 X 768 screen, i find that :

1 - Spliting my little screen (yes i know : shame on me ; i should have a huge one) , is definitly reducing the "widness" of the picture.

2 - A side bar that goes up when i scroll down is of no use when i get down to the half of the page.

So, when i want to go back, i : "Please use your browser's BACK button to return to the page that brought you here." as you wrote on your homepage picture.

By the way, i'll get use to it one day and (did i mention that i'm Français & Raleur) i'll keep your site on the top of my "Pavlov's Reflex Site's Short List" just because it is so good to read all those topics you're proposing. And this is alsoe for the good (quote : excellent) DVDs you're producing. (Still have to order volume 15...)

Thank's for it anyway.

Jérôme.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad