A "new look" for BT3Central

[kajendo]

Change is supposed to be good. Seems fine to me. Except I can't find the ARTICLES heading. I am new to this wonderful source of informatiom. I seem to refer back to the articles quite often.

[Stormbringer]

Allrighty... Give "BT3Central - Compromise width" a shot...

Whoa. That took some adjusting. I've been so used to the wide width all day it was weird seeing the "comprimised width" all of a sudden. Kinda like when I went to 100% width earlier today.

I'll take whatever is chosen.

Greg

[bigdaddyjohn]

I like the "Compromised Width".

bigdaddyjohn

[JR]

I hate to be a curmudgeon, but I like the original width, for the very reasons mentioned by LarryG. I use IE7 with the tabs feature, so all my windows are one size. The smaller width of BT3Central definitely reads easy.

It's not enough to complain about, though, Sam. If you need to change, then charge on.

JR

[footprintsinconc]

normal or compromise or wide

i get your point now, Larry. thanks for explaining.

i had been using my desktop, and the resolution wasnt set that high on there because i have a 16" diagonal monitor and because it is for the kids. however, my laptop is a 15" wide, so the resolution is set to 1600 x 1200. i too use the tabs feature, but in mozilla, the window is always maximized.

now on my laptop (where i spend most of my time), it the normal screen is much easier to read. you reading speed really does increase with short lines. i think it has to do with the fact that you can browse up and down while reading and thus without having your eyes travel all the way to the otherside, and when you come down, you kind of miss the next line in a large paragraph.

the compromise is better than the 100% wide. However, Sam, if you can make the compromise width halfway between the original and the 100%, i think that it would be perfect. correct me if i am wrong, i think the compromise is about 75% of the difference between the original and 100%?

since you gave us the compromise option,
the 50% difference between original and 100% is option 1 with me
then if the above is not possible, then the compromise is fine.

that is just my suggestion. obviously, you should do what will cause less work for you.

hope this helps.

[footprintsinconc]

sam,

i forgot, maybe you could redo or prolong the poll and add the compromise to it? ignore me if its too much.

[Sam Conder]

All right, my last option. There is a new "BT3Central - Final option", give it a try. As an FYI, I reserve the right to ultimately decide and the selection box will go away when I do.

[footprintsinconc]

Perfect! (final option)

I think you did it! the final option is just perfect and ofcourse you're incharge

my vote is for the "final option".

[Stormbringer]

I dunno. I'm not feeling the love from this "final option" as i did with Ms. 100% Width and Mrs. Compromise Width.

Then again, this narrow view is better than no view anyday.

Greg

[Ken Massingale]

I still like the 100%, I reckon. Sam, will the compromise have an adverse effect on Gallery image sizing?

[tbarn]

I like it,
Thanks for the improvement

[LarryG]

I still like BT3Central Classic best (no one is surprised, right?) but Final Option is a reasonably close second.

[Sam Conder]

...will the compromise have an adverse effect on Gallery image sizing?

You've hit the nail on the head on all of this Ken. It is my desire to allow images larger than the current "540 x 405" limit, but it just won't work with the site forced to 776px wide. From my testing, the "Final Option" is the narrowest the site will work at that still allows for larger images.

[Stormbringer]

From my testing, the "Final Option" is the narrowest the site will work at that still allows for larger images.

Sam,

How much larger? The current setup is just ok (IMHO) for uploaded images, but larger is always nicer. Would "Compromise" and "100%" permit even larger - i.e. ones that don't have to be clicked on to enlarge? I understand that larger images that have been posted in the past have been hosted offsite and are just linked to from BT3Central.

If that's the case, I'll re-vote from "It doesn't bother me" to whichever one allows larger pics.

Thanks,
Greg

[Ken Massingale]

Sam,

How much larger? The current setup is just ok (IMHO) for uploaded images, but larger is always nicer. Would "Compromise" and "100%" permit even larger - i.e. ones that don't have to be clicked on to enlarge? I understand that larger images that have been posted in the past have been hosted offsite and are just linked to from BT3Central.

If that's the case, I'll re-vote from "It doesn't bother me" to whichever one allows larger pics.

Thanks,
Greg

One thing I have noticed comparing BT3 to other vBulletin forums is that on BT3 with the old width, when clicking on an image in a post, there is not much difference in size between the image in the post and the 'enlarged' image.
On those forums with 100% width setting, there is a significant difference. It's also not only the images in posts that are affected, Sam is making Gallerys available for us to host our project pics in, and those Gallery images can also be linked to in posts.
I think going to 100% width would provide more benefits than issues.