Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: This is getting silly!  (Read 5021 times)
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« on: November 25, 2006, 11:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

My screen is set to 1024 by 768. Until now the site has been cut off on the side due to the new design but the Whats New page seemed to be OK. I clicked to read the new review and there is no point where I can fit all the article width ways across the screen, I have to scroll across while I read.

Needless to say I didn't bother. It would be rather upsetting to me to miss the content of a site that I respect a lot due to it being unreadable at a still popular screen resolution...
Logged

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

Posts: 4915



« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2006, 02:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that you're having a browser problem.

i have no such issue on 4 different browsers or two seperate machines at that screen resolution.

Michael
Logged
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2006, 04:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the identical problem at 1024 by 768 in IE7 in both full screen and normal mode.  There was another thread with numerous reports of problems with the new site displaying page width correctly.  Obviously, more work is needed.
Logged

John DeMott
DaveLon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2006, 04:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Works for me at 1280x1024 or 960  but cuts off at XX by 768.

Dave S
Logged
lbergman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2006, 04:22:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I checked several articles and everything fits for me at 1024x768 at full screen, with the exception of the table near the bottom of the SanDisk IV review.  I'm using Firefox 2.0.
Logged
DavidJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2006, 05:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Same problem as Ben with this particular article. Most of the others so far have been OK with the new layout. My display is 1280X1024 browser is ie6. Never any problems previously on the site.

David
Logged

David Allen
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4915



« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2006, 05:03:36 PM »
ReplyReply

We expect to revise the page layout over the next couple of weeks, so hang in there if you're having problems.

Michael
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 846



« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2006, 05:12:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it will be well worth the wait.  

Rich
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2006, 11:23:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael is correct, y'all have browser issues.  I can squeeze the window down to 600 wide and still read everything without scrolling.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2006, 01:36:31 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2006, 11:59:59 PM »
ReplyReply

To add one more to the list, I've tried IE 7 and my default Netscape 8.1 at 1024x768 under XP and have no problems with the pages.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2006, 01:50:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael is correct, y'all have browser issues.  I can squeeze the window down to 600 wide and still read everything without scrolling.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe, maybe not. The table in the Sandisk article is set as follows:

<table width="1176" border="1" align="center"> (from the source code view)

A simple coding mistake, easily made, and easily corrected.

Otherwise the site fits fine on a 1024x768 setup with Firefox, but only at full screen. In Firefox it is not possible to reduce the screen below 1024 wide without the dreaded bottom scroll bar appearing.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2006, 01:10:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe, maybe not. The table in the Sandisk article is set as follows:

<table width="1176" border="1" align="center"> (from the source code view)

A simple coding mistake, easily made, and easily corrected.

Otherwise the site fits fine on a 1024x768 setup with Firefox, but only at full screen. In Firefox it is not possible to reduce the screen below 1024 wide without the dreaded bottom scroll bar appearing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My bad -- sorry.  I was referring to the forum pages.  On the site pages I get the scroll bar at 1024 as well.
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1920



« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2006, 04:56:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe, maybe not. The table in the Sandisk article is set as follows:

<table width="1176" border="1" align="center"> (from the source code view)

A simple coding mistake, easily made, and easily corrected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Corrected  - again (Thanks Jani!)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2006, 08:43:16 PM by Chrissand » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2006, 05:28:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I think I may have found the source of the problem, since it persists in the Sandisk article.

First, you have DIV class="sidebar_wrapper" at a width defined in the style sheet (200 px).

This DIV contains several other DIVs, with a margin-right of 35 px.

Then you have a DIV id="content" with a minimum-width of 790 px and margin-right of 10 px (defined in the HTML code); this is the element that's placed to the right of the sidebar.

So, you have basically have a minimum requirement page width equal to:

200 + 35 + 790 + 10 = 1035 px

But there's more!

Within the "content" div, you have a conflicting table width declaration of "930", automatically interpreted as 930 px.

So the minimum required width is, in fact:

200 + 35 + 930 + 10 = 1175 px.

This is not a browser issue.

Those with browsers that don't show the problem have browser "issues", as in browsers not attempting to comply with the display instructions in the web page.


My advice: drop the pixel width requirement in the "content" div and the big table. The only graphical element that requires a certain width is the menu sidebar, and that would be better defined by using a with in terms of ems (use the length in characters of the longest text, that will give some headroom) plus a small margin (1-2 em).
Logged

Jan
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad