Oh the new forum, it's damn small !!!

Richard · #1 August 24th, 2004, 01:48 PM

Actually the decision was made based on the majority of user response on the font issue. No matter what way we went someone was going to be unhappy. We may setup on larger set for those with extremely large monitors. One thing to keep in mind is that even IE has ways to bypass stylesheets so that you can set this they way you want.

Again we cant please everyone with the choices we made with the font issue, but by and large we have heard much more positive responses than negative ones.

guybrush threepwood · #2 August 24th, 2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Richard said:
Actually the decision was made based on the majority of user response on the font issue. No matter what way we went someone was going to be unhappy. We may setup on larger set for those with extremely large monitors. One thing to keep in mind is that even IE has ways to bypass stylesheets so that you can set this they way you want.

Again we cant please everyone with the choices we made with the font issue, but by and large we have heard much more positive responses than negative ones.

I think you maybe missed Esbens point. Certainly for the majority of people like me who surf in something like 1024x768 on a laptop the new forum size is much better, but that is because by using pixels to specify font size rather than, say using css relative sizes (100%, 150%, etc.), you are hardcoding for specific screensizes. By using relative sizes (including 100% which means leaving it alone), you could actually please everyone.

Cheers,
Thomas

Arryn · #3 August 24th, 2004, 02:14 PM

Another problem with using pixels rather than relative sizes is that it screws up the way the HTML font attributes (such as bold, etc.) are interpreted when small styles are selected.

And I understand what Esben is going through. I use a large monitor also and I had to switch from 1600x1200 down to 1280x1024, and select large/huge (not much difference between them) just to be able to read the forum without rather serious eyestrain.

Any study of CSS/HTML coding guides will tell you exactly what Esben has said: you don't use pixels unless there's a darn good reason to, *and* you're an expert web designer.

Thufir · #4 August 24th, 2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Richard said:
Actually the decision was made based on the majority of user response on the font issue. No matter what way we went someone was going to be unhappy. We may setup on larger set for those with extremely large monitors. One thing to keep in mind is that even IE has ways to bypass stylesheets so that you can set this they way you want.

Again we cant please everyone with the choices we made with the font issue, but by and large we have heard much more positive responses than negative ones.

Richard,

I for one am generally happy with the results of the forum change. I am particularly happy that Shrapnel has listened to feedback, and has continued to adjust/improve the forum software after the initial launch.

That said, I think Esben's point is more about implementation than design, and it really is widely acknowledged that hardcoding pixel sizes is a bad thing. This is something that could easily be fixed, and would enhance everyone's experience.

Ironhawk · #5 August 24th, 2004, 07:34 PM

Yeah I'm with Thufir on this one. I've had no problems with fonts in the new Version of the forums. And having the Posts display in the correct order is just great!

As for what particular metric to use when designing the web page: the way you described sounds like a win-win, but I hesitate to ask for much more, given that Shrapnel just made a major change that people have been groaning about for a long while.