|
notapplicable
Dec 4, 2008, 7:29 AM
Post #26 of 37
(2920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
FWIW, I like the new lay out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 4, 2008, 12:59 PM
Post #27 of 37
(2906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
happiegrrrl wrote: ....what about making the front page be something people can actually manipulate personally?
Or keep the front page more-or-less as is, but give users with accounts a customizable personal front page, which could contain, say, their friends online, watched threads, PMs, etc.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 4, 2008, 7:57 PM
Post #28 of 37
(2883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: ....what about making the front page be something people can actually manipulate personally? Or keep the front page more-or-less as is, but give users with accounts a customizable personal front page, which could contain, say, their friends online, watched threads, PMs, etc. Jay
That sounds like a good compromise.
FYI: I just had the first discussion today about changing the way the home page displays. Currently, it's a fluid-width template that changes based on your screen size and resolution. (Try minimizing your browser window, then use the slider at bottom right to adjust and you'll see what I mean. It's fucking killing me.  I can't do a bloddy thing to the home page, without screwing somebody somewhere's pooch.) What we're discussing doing is having a static width. It would display the same things in the same places regardless. Along with that, I'd look into re-organizing the rest of the page to put things closer to where people want them. I'd think pretty hard about Jay's idea and a few others, too.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Dec 5, 2008, 1:37 PM
Post #29 of 37
(2860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I'm suprised to see you have the advertising turned on. 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 5, 2008, 4:08 PM
Post #31 of 37
(2854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
j_ung wrote: rrrADAM wrote: I'm suprised to see you have the advertising turned on.  I click 'em religiously nowadays.
For 25% I'll sell you a script...
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jackwill
Dec 5, 2008, 4:14 PM
Post #32 of 37
(2853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
Posts: 7
|
IE 7.0.5730.13
MS Win XP Pro 5.1.2600 SP3
Dell-t3400
1280x1024 32bit
NVIDIA Quadro FX 570
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 5, 2008, 4:29 PM
Post #33 of 37
(2850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jackwill wrote: IE 7.0.5730.13 MS Win XP Pro 5.1.2600 SP3 Dell-t3400 1280x1024 32bit NVIDIA Quadro FX 570
Aren't the specs kinda' useless without knowing whether the page looks good or not with them?
Jay (the other one)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 5, 2008, 5:45 PM
Post #34 of 37
(2848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think we have this fixed now. Keeping this up just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Dec 16, 2008, 11:37 PM
Post #35 of 37
(2754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
j_ung wrote: I think we have this fixed now. Keeping this up just in case.
I think the font sizes have shrunk, especially the subscript (e.g. Climbing News headline - "160 articles" is really small in relation to "Climbing News"). For those of us without eagle-eyes, I preferred the original font size relationship. It's not just a matter of increasing my font size since it's the subscript - and all other sites have ok font to me.
Everything else seems great.
Hope that makes sense... can't upload a screenshot that is within 150kb, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
churningindawake
Dec 17, 2008, 10:02 PM
Post #36 of 37
(2743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2007
Posts: 5292
|
I like it. it looks pretty good to me. I'm running 1280*1024
Screenshot of it.
(This post was edited by churningindawake on Dec 17, 2008, 10:09 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
rc.gif
(127 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
rockie
Dec 25, 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #37 of 37
(2694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1130
|
It's fine. I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
