Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4124)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Yes, for a website to be able to support any arbitrary resolution and be easy to use on mobile devices of any size, would indeed be a very nice thing to have. In other news, grass is green, water is wet, ice is cold, and Captain Obvious is breaking speech records today on making statements of the obvious. My point is, it is easy to talk about how the site markup code can be improved in many ways and how it should be compatible with any device. That is more or less obvious, and there's not really much to argue against that. However, what would actually be useful is if people would actually have a go at redesigning the site's CSS code for modern devices. Nahoc has had a few goes at rewriting the CSS code, to somewhat mixed response, but perhaps someone else has a better idea they could try to put into practice (or Nahoc could make improvements/additions to his original redesign). Things like that would be much more useful.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa <dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects. <Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits <adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Post subject: Re: Nahoc nameflash
keylie
He/Him
Editor, Emulator Coder, Expert player (2841)
Joined: 3/17/2013
Posts: 392
marzojr wrote:
keylie wrote:
Well, according to this site, based on their own log, still 44% browse the internet with a resolution strictly less than 1024 pixels wide.
That site does not say what you think it says:
As of today, about 97% of our visitors have a screen resolution of 1024x768 pixels or higher:
In the table that follows, it lists 800x600 with 0.3% and "lower" with 2% as the only options with width strictly less than 1024 for Jan 2015; the last time strictly less than 1024 was 44% or more was in Jan 2003 — at least according to this data.
My mistake, I mixed up the screen height and width.
Editor, Experienced player (860)
Joined: 8/12/2008
Posts: 845
Location: Québec, Canada
Also, what do you guys think of the website's font? The current font is (mainly) Georgia, sometimes with serif, sometimes without. I would propose something simple like Roboto, Open Sans or the same font used in the forums (DejaVu Sans) which are all sans-serif fonts. http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/roboto http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/open-sans http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/dejavu-sans
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
I like both current site and forum fonts, but may need to see in action. Can you post pics to not force everyone to tinker with browser?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Editor, Experienced player (860)
Joined: 8/12/2008
Posts: 845
Location: Québec, Canada
Alright, so the current tasvideos.org looks something like this: And my most recent proposition looks like this (style is similar on other pages): Few things: Hover on images now has transparency (same for navigation), Font is sans-seriff (subject to change) Dotted lines are now solid Old style is kept so users don't get lost Now has a max-width of 1600px Cleaner padding on content and more! Let me know what you think.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
The font is a bit too huge IMO. Maybe it shouldn't be as small as the current one, but maybe it should?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2643)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6438
Location: The land down under.
Kinda want to see more variants to see what they do to: 1280x720 1920x1080 (whatever size 10:9 ratio) (whatever size 21:3 ratio) and of course. 960x720 I cannot give a proper opinion on the size due to my screen being smaller than it.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.