Vertical space

pbacot · 4 Oct 2012, 18:12

Don't know if anything can reasonably be done, but it seems a lot more vertical space is used
than before, especially for the Post a Response page. A lot of these things I never look at--though I am sure they serve some purpose. Could the various buttons be put to the side like the smilies (wish I could hide those by default).

Could the user info be condensed? Why not an 8 pro choice rather than two double spaced entries? And the requirement that everyone answer every question. Sometimes (not often ) my profile is way longer than my post, which shows a bunch of blank space.

It requires more "page-down" clicks than before.

The Quick Reply is GREAT!

But GREAT WORK on the adjustments you've made recently. "Ad machine" and member groups choices are a big improvement in the graphics area.

Thanks to the team, Peter

charly2008 · 4 Oct 2012, 20:54

Why is there so much free vertical space at both sides?

pbacot · 4 Oct 2012, 21:06

@charly2008 said:

Why is there so much free vertical space at both sides?

Charly,

Consider it a free bonus.

I get a lot of space on the sides with my 30" screen but the forum fits about right on a 17" notebook. Your screen looks really wide. I was more concerned that in the screen space that they are using (probably based on an optimal width for a variety of screens) the vertical space between buttons and boxes seems high, and it would be nice if these things can be stacked more efficiently. For example there is a lot of space left over in the upper right on the page I am typing on.

I have no idea what is possible with the SCF setup. Just commments.

Peter

Rich O Brien · 4 Oct 2012, 21:29

@unknownuser said:

Why is there so much free vertical space at both sides?

To match the main site. Having a fluid width that adjusted to browser widthe didn't look right. We had it set for about a month.

The main site couldn't be set to fluid width so we have a fixed width on both.

Gaieus · 5 Oct 2012, 08:25

If you remember the old forums, the text width insidethe the forums width was also set to a relatively narrow, fixed width (some 640 pixels as far as I remember) for easier reading. Now the "full width" of the current posting area is about the same size so practically speaking, nothing has changed as you see the exact same width of text and attached images.

What has in fact changed is that now external images embedded with the [img] tags are also resized to fit in the forum area (and are clickable to display full size). This is IMO an improvement though as previously some of these images broke out of the forum frame and forced the browser to side scrolling which is a very annoying thing.

pbacot · 5 Oct 2012, 16:39

Well my comment is not so esoteric. I just find everything is spread out on the page and it takes scrolling and scrolling to make a post--except the Quick Reply : ).

"Viewing Profile" is also an example of expansive layout needing a lot of scrolling and searching for what used to be right at the top.

Gaieus · 5 Oct 2012, 17:16

Yeah, the "View profile" page is something very exoticly spread. I was trying to tweak it today but to no avail.

The other thing is the "Post Reply" page which would definitely profit something if I could find the way to append a "bookmark" to the "Post Reply" link (try this to see...)

pbacot · 5 Oct 2012, 17:22

Gai,
Yes that'd help, though you miss another chance to view the ad!

Peter

Gaieus · 5 Oct 2012, 18:00

OK, what about this link now?

pbacot · 5 Oct 2012, 18:25

Up to me? I'll take the first one!

pbacot · 5 Oct 2012, 20:31

I notice that on a 17" monitor (wide format laptop)(1280x800), Mac / Firefox, I need to scroll for the last bit to see the next page buttons (at the bottom of the page). Didn't ever see that before. This is sort of the opposite of the width issue noted above. Shouldn't most elements be within a standard window width? 15" or 17"? Especially navigation buttons? Just being helpful....

Gaieus · 5 Oct 2012, 21:07

Didn't you incidentally zoom in? Press Ctrl+0 (zero) to zoom 100% on the website. The whole width is 960 pixels altogether so should fit on a 1200 something monitor.

Box · 5 Oct 2012, 21:12

It's a Mac Gai,, anything is possible.

Gaieus · 5 Oct 2012, 21:55

Well, Mac or not, 960 pixels (or 940 with 10 pixel margin on each side) is just 940 pixels.

wind-borne · 5 Oct 2012, 23:26

vertical space? 2 lines of post fill a screen

EscapeArtist · 6 Oct 2012, 19:49

I like the space. I have a 1920x1080 LCD and keeping everything in that nice little strip down the middle makes it easier to read. With web pages that go edge-to-edge I have to sit way back from the screen to see everything.

pbacot · 7 Oct 2012, 03:28

That's not the space OP (I) was speaking of

I mean the waste of space (loose grouping of buttons, line spacing, extra features etc.) requiring much more scrolling down the page than before.

I think you DO have to have sufficient side buffers so everyone doesn't have to scroll sideways on regular screens. (As a matter of fact, on a wide 17 in screen, I have to scroll sideways to use this forum now as well.)

EscapeArtist · 7 Oct 2012, 12:46

That's true. I do find myself hunting for things that are a little spaced out, but I just blame myself for needing time to get used to the new layout.

Dan Rathbun · 15 Nov 2012, 20:56

@dan rathbun said:

I also wonder why the forum Title needs to be so large it's uses 33px and has a 15px bottom margin, for a total of 48px in height.

OK.. thanks Gai or Rich, I see someone added a specific CSS rule to remove the unneeded 15px bottom margin.

Well 15px is a start for ya', Peter.

Rich O Brien · 16 Nov 2012, 17:45

Also try the Page Eraser Chrome Extension if space is an issue