next »

[Torkell]

Recently I've been using computers that run at around 800 by 600 (compared to 1024 by 768 on my usual computer), and I've found that it's quite hard to use the forum at low resolutions (as the main window isn't wide enough and you end up doing a lot of scrolling). Frames are all very well, but what would be useful would be an option (say stored in a cookie) to view the site either without frames or with no left menu and reduced header and footer. I'll design a different layout if that would help, or you could get HAFF to do a new one.

What I'm thinking of is something like:

+------------------------------+
|   Unseen developments banner  |
|           Menu bar            |
+------------------------------+
|                              |
|                              |
|         Main window           |
|                              |
|                              |
+------------------------------+
|      (possible footer)        |
+------------------------------+

[Sebastian_Mares]

It would be a good idea not to use frames at all. That will be more search engine friendly and also allow users to bookmark pages.
I would go with CSS, but that would nuke support for Netscape 4 and other older browsers. However, it would encourage people to upgrade to newer browsers like Mozilla, Netscape 7 or Opera.

[Torkell]

That was what I was intending - doing it as a frameless layout and using PHP/ASP/SSI/Perl/whatever to add the menubar and the footer as two tables (one before everything, the other after everything). Top & bottom can be nice and fancy, rest can be simple but functional. By all means use CSS (but for style not positioning), as long as it's still readable in a CSS-less browser, or even better, still readable in something like Lynx.

[Tsorovan]

Sounds like a lot of work for questionable improvements to me hehe.

[Sebastian_Mares]

You could check out my site for an idea how the Header, Menu, Contents, Footer look might be coded. If you don't want the elements to scroll, you could add the CSS property "fixed" for the "position" tag.

It might be problematic to adjust the forum. I was too lazy to add the footer and the menu to my IPB. Not sure how YaBB SE is at styling.

[Sebastian_Mares]

One more thing... Creating the site 100% CSS based will ruin the Netscape 4 support, as I said already. Another idea would be creating tables.

[Vesh]

Backwards compatibility has a place only when it doesn't hinder worthwhile progress. CSS2- and other standards- compliant futureproofing is the way to go and if that's where they wanna take the u4s site, I'm all for it.

A no-frame design would be awesome. The current "we're forcing you into the frame" script is rather annoying and incourteously [not a word?] heavy-handed.

[Tsorovan]

The word you're looking for is discourteously.

[Vesh]

Cool. Seen both used. I think I like in- better, but if dis- is more dictionary-correct then there ya have it. Not like it's a word I used often, though but it suited this case well.

[Brian]

Incourteous and disconsiderate, I'd say, not to mention uncautious.

[Ralesk]

isn't that /inconsiderate/?

[Torkell]

Sounds like a lot of work for questionable improvements to me hehe.

Change your screen to 800 by 600 and then decide. No cheating by using multiple monitors or running IE6 in fullscreen!

[Tsorovan]

No offense, but you're... one user? 800x600 is universally below the limit for most web designs today. Why are you limited to using only 800x600? Work/school? Get them to change it instead, and you'll do everyone a favour :D

Ah well, not my decision of course, it just sounds strange to me. Progress.

Having that said, frames suck balls.

[Ian @ un4seen]

The reason for the forcing of the frames is so that if people use links to a specific page of the site (eg. www.un4seen.com/xmplay.html instead of www.un4seen.com), they still get the full site, including the menu with links to the other pages. Otherwise, they'd be stuck in the one page, with no way to navigate to the rest of the site.

Of course, the menu could be added to every page, but that'd unnecessarily bloat the pages, and as you've probably noticed, I'm anti-bloatage. But the main reason for frames is that I like the convenience of having the menu accessible at all times without having to scroll the page.

[Vesh]

Dialup peeps *might* give a damn, but I doubt it. The nav just isn't complicated enough to get mad about being included into a flat-page design.

Frames are annoying. The stick-in script is annoying. Please go to tables and includes.

[Pike84]

Everyone is saying that frames suck and they're annoying.. Now what exactly is so bad about them? They don't annoy me.

[Olego]

No offense, but you're... one user? 800x600 is universally below the limit for most web designs today. Why are you limited to using only 800x600? Work/school? Get them to change it instead, and you'll do everyone a favour

Nah, make that 2.  I use 800x600 because: (1) My monitor doesn't support 100 Hz on higher resolutions, (2) I am so used to 100 Hz that anything lower is too noticeable (yes, even 85 Hz now irks me), and (3) because this is not an LCD, my eyes get much too tired at higher resolutions.  BTW, I am on a 19-inch monitor, I'll go higher on a 21-inch one.  ~Olego~

[Tsorovan]

Ouch. No offense, but your 19" must be one of the worst in the world. I thought mine, which is a 4 year old budget thing, was the worst one, but I was clearly wrong. (800x600@144 Hz, 1024x768@100 Hz.) Sadly for me, I'm also need a good refresh rate, but I cannot give up the resolution, so there's a compromise. 1280x960@85. Bleh. I need a new 19" that can do 1600x1200 at at least 92 or 97 Hz. Wish me luck.

[Torkell]

15" beast here at school running at 800x600. Don't think the monitors will cope with a higher resolution and anyway the fonts would look too small. Roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the computers are newer ones with 1024x768 LCD displays. At home I've got a PC with a LCD running at 1024x768 downstairs (currently the only one with any internet access), and in my room is The Beast (dualhead top-end GeForce4 driving two displays at 1152x864 with 75Hz refresh).
Besides, if you use the default-sized IE6 window on a PC with 800x600, the "To be informed of updates" part of the menu is hidden.

[Ralesk]

Oleg, you must be watching ant-sized pixels there... I have 1024x768 on a 17'' and it's by far not "too detailed".  I can sorta understand the frequency problem, though I'm currently using 85Hz and it's great and 75Hz isn't too much worse.

[Pike84]

Yeah, I can't really understand 800x600 on 19". I'm using 1280x1024 on my 19" monitor, and 85hz is well enough too. It could do 100hz, but I can't see any difference, so I figured perhaps it's "less straining" not to take it to the limit .

[Rah'Dick]

Ultimate geekiness!!

1152x864 @ 72 Hz on a 15'' ViewSonic 15GS!

[Olego]

I tried that on my old 15" once.  It was only @60, though...  Blah.  ~Olego~

[Torkell]

Ultimate geekiness!!

1152x864 @ 72 Hz on a 15'' ViewSonic 15GS!

Sorry, I've got even more geekiness.

1152x864x32 @ 75Hz on a pair of 15" (I think) CRTs - one Sony flatscreen (CPD-E100) and one old Dell (model unknown but detected as PnP).

[velusip]

I usually work on very small screens and consoles so I can
definitely relate- but I don't complain... so there.

Hehe, but I am seeing more websites do the top only menu
bar and it is definitely working for me.

[Torkell]

Everyone is saying that frames suck and they're annoying.. Now what exactly is so bad about them? They don't annoy me.

How about frames screwing up the way IE handles the back button - I didn't expect to go back to Yahoo Mail when I was about 4 links deep into this site:
typed in forum URL > XMPlay forum > New Topic > Preview > Preview > Preview > (back button) form expired message > (back link) Yahoo Mail (WTF?)

[Pike84]

Ok, that's a reason.. but then again, why use IE ?

[Ralesk]

btw, in my Mozilla, my browsing area is about 800x600 and it's more than fine for about every site I watch.  I can understand the crappy handling of frames by browsers, though.

[Torkell]

Ok, that's a reason.. but then again, why use IE ?

It's on the computer, it's compatabile with the vast majority of sites (especially since a lot of sites are designed *for* IE and don't work well with Netscape/Mozilla/Opera), it's secure enough if you get the settins right, it supports ActiveX controls (used for Flash, QuickTime, Windows Update and a lot of other things). Plus I can't install my own browser at school.

[Sebastian_Mares]

I am a Mozzy user and whenever I press F5 (refresh), Mozzy will take me to the main page (no matter where I am on the site).

[Tsorovan]

Yep, I've been seeing that too, all the time. Doesn't bother me much though, hence why I haven't reported it.
MozillaFirebird 0.7

[Ralesk]

Going to www.un4seen.com opens the last visited middle-frame unless you exited the browser session.

As for calling this a bug or a feature, I have yet to decide.

Mozilla Firebird too.

[Vesh]

Bug. Bug... bug... bug bug bug. It's annoying: it's a bug.

Solution: Dont use frames!

Seriously, the design of this place would be SIMPLE compared to most sites if it were flat. Not even Rupert Thungfwaller of Pochunk Hollow Road, Tennessee on his 9500 baud [lost 100 in the war of communist aggression (aka, tha fight with that damn hippy across the road)] external 'mo-dim' would have a problem with the speed of this site if it were includes-based and non-framed.

[Pike84]

Bah, I like the design of this site. I'm totally cool with the frames, no problems whatsoever here. Don't change it, I say !

[Olego]

Not even Rupert Thungfwaller of Pochunk Hollow Road, Tennessee on his 9500 baud [lost 100 in the war of communist aggression (aka, tha fight with that damn hippy across the road)] external 'mo-dim' would have a problem with the speed of this site if it were includes-based and non-framed.

That must be one of the greatest allegories concerning modems, ever!  ~Olego~

[Ian @ un4seen]

How about frames screwing up the way IE handles the back button - I didn't expect to go back to Yahoo Mail when I was about 4 links deep into this site:
typed in forum URL > XMPlay forum > New Topic > Preview > Preview > Preview > (back button) form expired message > (back link) Yahoo Mail (WTF?)

I don't have that problem with IE6 here - "back" goes back to the previous page in the frame.

Anyway... I personally think frames work well on the site, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post

[kamnet]

I feel that this site has one of the most creative, interesting and eye-pleasing frame-based layouts that I've ever seen.

Backwards compatability IMO is for the most part a dumb idea these days. Holding yourself hostage to HTML 3.x/4.x and a dumbed-down CSS set is nonsense. Ignoring the fact that Internet Explorer holds nearly 90% of the browser market is dumb, and that most users are running at least 5.x. If you're still using IE4/NS4, there isn't a word that I can use to describe what I think of you without it resulting in an insult. Yes their later versions may be more bloated but they also RENDER FASTER, and are more up-to-date with technology.

I can see how 800x600 browser windows with full-size tool bars may present a problem. My solution is to simply shrink down the toolbar sizes, shrink down your scrollbar sizes, and bump up the resolution a little. It really sucks that schools and some businesses feel the need to have to lock these down, but a better solution is to complain to their various IS departments than to expect the whole Web to change to suit your archaic needs.

[Ralesk]

Granted, the site looks quite good.  There are little bugs with frame handling on most browsers, though, and those are out of our reach.

I have no idea what on good Earth you mean with HTML3.  It's deprecated, the oldest HTML version one should ever consider is HTML4.01 transitional.

Keep in mind this site has to please its visitors, therefore browser compatibility is important.  It is important that it doesn't break into tiny pieces on Explorer or Opera or, say, Konqueror, so I think it's a good idea to keep away from too nifty features, like most of CSS2, translucent PNG images, and so on.  This is one of the reasons why people have to keep away from xhtml too, not to mention that Explorer doesn't handle the standard MIME type of xhtml.

I don't support either that IE is so /everywhere/ but what can we do?  Show a broken or not-rendered site to 90% of the visitors?  That would be insane.

If we are talking about CSS2 and HTML4.01 Transitional, I have to tell you that even IE4 is a quite decent piece of outdated software.  NS4 is not and has never been.

If we are talking about any standard more modern, keep in mind that even IE6/Win32 doesn't support CSS2 properly, Opera has serious issues with table backgrounds on occasion, Mozilla has some table column issues, ... should I point out that every browser is crap?  One just can't forget about the quirks of browsers and make a style that works in only his favourite one.

Furthermore, if you are not able to (read: not being an arsehole and denying to) update the browser, we would be seriously evil pinheads to break support to you, don't you think? (I still loathe sysadmins who claim NS4 is the newest graphical browser they would ever allow on their system)   Same goes to display settings.  I for one cannot, may not change anything on my school computers in that regard.  And it pisses me off to see teeny-tiny letters that are totally unreadable without even the minimal anti-aliasing that is possible without this CoolType thing.  And believe me, there is no use at whining at some of those arseholes who administer these school machines.  Been there done that.

[kamnet]

So why punish Ian & co. because a) you can't change your work settings and b) your spending time on a website instead of working?

If your worksite is that drastically locked down, the problem isn't with the Un4Seen Developments Web site.

Yes, yes, every browser sucks - so you can either try to play for the middle and eventually be thrown into using very basic HTML in an attempt to try to please all the people all the time (and then listen to gripes about how the site looks plain and boring), or you can shoot for the browser that has the biggest market share. There's no middle ground, there's no negotiation of any kind available. It's a one-or-the-other proposition that ultimately has no winner - so why not go with the solution that suits the site owner the best? After all, this Web site is a reflection of THEIR personality, style, and what they want to represent. Unfortunately, whichever choice you make, you're going to find somebody, somewhere who will be put off by it. *shrugs* That's one of those situations where you just have to say "Dealwiddit (TM)".

[Rah'Dick]

*thumbs up*

May I quote you two on another forum?

[kamnet]

*thumbs up*

May I quote you two on another forum?

Be my guest if it helps you, but don't blame me if it only gets you flamed  
(sometimes my zeal of the zen zaps me back ;-) )