New website/forum style

What's new on F-16.net?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post25 May 2006, 19:25

My screen is 1024 across. By restricting your display to 800 it means more scrolling and wasted space on the right.

Personally I liked the old way better...
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 969
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post25 May 2006, 19:41

I'm sure there is someway of auto-clipping the forum width to the browser window/resolution.

That I think would be better, I have a high resolution for one reason, more stuff on the screen at once... and a having to scroll alot defeats that :)

Anyway, keep up the great work lads!

Andy
Andy Evans Aviation Photography
www.evansaviography.co.uk
Offline

RyanCollins

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2004, 19:24
  • Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina

Unread post25 May 2006, 19:48

Congratulations by the new design! Sincerely the page looks brilliant with this new format! Congrats to the F-16.net team and Peter, you guys made an excellent work.

:cheers:
A circle is the reflection of eternity: It has no beginning, and it has no end...
Offline

AfterburnerDecalsScott

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 10 May 2005, 18:45

Unread post25 May 2006, 20:02

I really like it a lot.....the new banner is awesome.
More people have died driving with Ted Kennedy than hunting with Dick Cheney.
Offline

ET-204

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 23:17
  • Location: Denmark

Unread post25 May 2006, 21:55

Well, I think it's a cool design!

/ ET-204
Offline

Person

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2004, 23:59

Unread post25 May 2006, 22:10

Roscoe wrote:My screen is 1024 across. By restricting your display to 800 it means more scrolling and wasted space on the right.

Personally I liked the old way better...


The new banner and color scheme look great! But I agree with Roscoe and the others. The squished text on the left 1/3 of the screen is hard on the eyes.

I run Firefox: 1152 x 864 @ work and 1600 x 1200 @ home.
Offline
User avatar

Jon

F-16.net Editor

F-16.net Editor

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2003, 18:21

Unread post25 May 2006, 22:11

Hi All

Looks like most of the feedback is positive. As an editor, I've had this new format for a while. I didn't like it as much at first, but now I find it better. So anyone who isn't used to it, just give it a little time like I did. It looks great but was different.

Good job Stefaan, Lieven and Bjorn

Cheers,
Jon
Offline

Redtail115

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 19:12

Unread post25 May 2006, 23:22

when on a screen bigger than 1024x768 (I'm on 1280x1024) the website is ONLY using the left two thirds of my browser.

This is fine for the website but for the forums, its squashing the threads up and making them even longer I'm afraid!


Ditto, :2c:

But, the site looks great, real clean! I especially like the new logo and graphics. :thumb:

Thanks guys!
"Its the man, not the machine."
Offline

Person

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2004, 23:59

Unread post25 May 2006, 23:56

Jon wrote:Hi All

Looks like most of the feedback is positive. As an editor, I've had this new format for a while. I didn't like it as much at first, but now I find it better. So anyone who isn't used to it, just give it a little time like I did. It looks great but was different.

Good job Stefaan, Lieven and Bjorn

Cheers,
Jon


Curious to why you think it's better? From a web design standpoint anywhere from half to 1/3 the page is being wasted with white space. And then it smashes all the text into a portion of the screen. Also the forum text doesn't align with the banner width for instance.

I saw the newspaper comment. But this isn't a newspaper and newspapers put things in tiny columns to get the most amount of articles on one page given the limited space they are working with. They don't make books into tiny columns for instance. Fixing it at 800 pixels wide was a wise choice in 1998 but now?
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post26 May 2006, 04:23

Curious to why you think it's better?

IMO the look and color scheme is more visually appealing, as well as the toolbar layout on the left side. And of course the great banner!

Like I said, the ONLY thing that I think is a step backwards is the fixed width forums. Can't do proportional widths?
Offline

F16VIPER

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 565
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 01:51

Unread post26 May 2006, 04:50

Guys:
Thanks for your efforts in trying to please us all F-16 lovers.

I may be alone on this one, but I find the opening page far too crowded and difficult to read.

Graphically I believe it is better to have a page with 3 columns or maybe just 2.
New forum entries could go on top of news. Just a thought. 4 columns makes it a bit crowded. All the computers I have access too are running at very high resolution so it is a bit difficult to read.

Thanks again for such a great site.

regards

F16VIPER
Offline

DeepSpace

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1055
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2003, 18:26

Unread post26 May 2006, 05:43

It looks great! One glitch I found is the Photo Gallery. It's dead :wink:.
Offline

Stefaan

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 2603
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 11:32
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post26 May 2006, 08:45

Person wrote:Curious to why you think it's better? From a web design standpoint anywhere from half to 1/3 the page is being wasted with white space. And then it smashes all the text into a portion of the screen. Also the forum text doesn't align with the banner width for instance.

I saw the newspaper comment. But this isn't a newspaper and newspapers put things in tiny columns to get the most amount of articles on one page given the limited space they are working with. They don't make books into tiny columns for instance. Fixing it at 800 pixels wide was a wise choice in 1998 but now?


I didn't say it was better from a DESIGN point of view - but it's better from a usability point of view. Short lines are easier to read (that's the general consensus and there's a bunch of research that confirms it). It's the same reason why many sites with lots of text use short lines. See for example:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/0 ... index.html
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

We'll look into a more fluid design though , so you can make the forum as wide as you want to - only makes sense to give everyone the choice :-)

stefaan
Stefaan Vanhastel
F-16.net Webmaster.
Offline

Stefaan

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 2603
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 11:32
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post26 May 2006, 08:47

DeepSpace wrote:It looks great! One glitch I found is the Photo Gallery. It's dead :wink:.


Yeah it sometimes does that - it's a serious bug in the software. It requires a manual restart to get it going again.

Sorry for the inconvenience - I hope one of the next releases of the software will fix that problem.

stefaan
Stefaan Vanhastel
F-16.net Webmaster.
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post26 May 2006, 14:49

Stefaan wrote:
To answer Andy's question about the text width in the forum: We chose indeed to limit the text width to 800pixels, for two reasons:

1. main reason is to make it easier to read. There's a lot of research available that confirms short text lines are easier to read, and optimum text width is less than 800pixels (if you print an 800 pixel page, you'd fill a standard A4 or Letter page, so no coincidence there)


For me it's not easier to read the texts when I've got half of the screen BRIGHT WHITE. I have to use a 21' monitor both at work and at home because of my job - CAD.
In my opinion going back to 800 is a step back now when everybody starts dumping old 15' and even 17' screens - it's just not an improvement.
Sorry guys, I know you're working hard for this site but I had to say it!
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests