Beta 3 VS beta 4

[novill]

In my test area I have uploaded the smf 2.1 beta 3 and then upgraded it to beta 4. I noticed that the beta 4 is not so wide.
What is the reason for that?

[Gwenwyfar]

Beta 4 has a maximum width limit to prevent it being hard to read/use. If you want you can change this limit in the css, just look for "max-width: 1200px" in index.css, but I wouldn't recommend you remove it or make it too wide.

[novill]

Can you explain to me why is hard to read the wider website? The "old" smf 2.0.15 is wide, and it fills the whole website.
Thanks for your reply

[Illori]

try clearing your browsers cache and that may fix the issue.

[Gwenwyfar]

Because having to follow a line from one side to another far side of the screen isn't comfortable. Many buttons are also placed either on the right or on the left, and when there is not much content between them, having the forum take up the entire screen only creates a lot of empty space, making this problem even worse. And since most pages will have a lot of empty space, most pages are affected by this.

[novill]

I understand, then this site will be not wide. When some writes to many word in the topic I must go down, use my mouse to read the whole content? For me it's strange because I will have lots of free space the right and the left side.
I believe you, that this is good for usability Facebook feed is similar for that kind of reason I guess.
Thank for your answer.

I noticed the following:
I have checked in different browsers my test site, and I noticed that in Internet Explorer 11 the bottom line in not in the right place.
When I open the site in Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome then works fine.

[Gwenwyfar]

Don't take this for granted because it's still being considered, but there could be some changes to use the left/right space for something else (eg. the menu). If you have any suggestions about how that space could be used we can take it into consideration too

That must be a bug in IE, I'll look into it.

[novill]

I like the old fashion way, the site is responsible and can fill the space. My screen is pretty wide, and I don't like that many page don't fill it, and I must scroll down to see the content.

[Gwenwyfar]

I see. Stretching the site won't make you have to scroll any less though, only for large blocks of text and a few other specific places. Everything else doesn't change much in height. Instead of simply stretching and leaving blank space, moving content elsewhere could be more useful. But I have never seen any site do this, so there's no examples to go by.

[Biology Forums]

Also, I'd recommend using any other browser than Windows Explorer. Try Edge if you're a Microsoft fan.

[Kindred]

I hate fixed width designs...     I prefer a 90% width, which then floats the size to the appropriate look for the device.

[novill]

Also, I'd recommend using any other browser than Windows Explorer. Try Edge if you're a Microsoft fan.

I don't use Microsoft Explorer browser, just checked the smf2.1 in different browser and then I noticed the problem. But somebody can use this browser to. 

I hate fixed width designs...     I prefer a 90% width, which then floats the size to the appropriate look for the device.

90% wide is good for me.
If you see the first picture which is attached to the topic, that wide isn't 90% in beta 4 version.

[Gwenwyfar]

I hate fixed width designs...     I prefer a 90% width, which then floats the size to the appropriate look for the device.

It's a limit, not a fixed width. And it's a single line change if you really want to remove it... But it adds no value, it just moves all the empty space to the middle of your vision instead of leaving it on the sides so you can focus on the actual content.

Using more of the empty space would be akin to an adaptive theme in reverse (make changes for larger monitors instead of small devices), but I've yet to see how well that works. May not have much to fill it with in practice.


A practical example. This is how a (small) wide monitor would display the heading of this forum with no limit, vs having one:
Tables and other similar content that has some connection to the other side are even "nicer" to look at.

[novill]

Let's see my example. 
I have tested with more content from my original forum. I have made a few pictures, you can see that with beta 3 looks better the site, and the user can have more content on the screen.

I haven't change the resolution.
Usability is better I think with wider screen.
Which one is looking better?

[Gwenwyfar]

You still have a rather small monitor, and even so it still shows all I said. Except for large posts, nothing else changes much, just more useless space. And for posts themselves... Books are narrow for a reason, it's more comfortable to read 

[landyvlad]

I have a question as reagrds this - how will it affects portals eg tinyportal, simple portal etc.

Will those sit to the left and right of this max 1200 width, or will their content blocks be jammed into this space as well?

[GigaWatt]

@Gwenwyfar: Why don't you just make the max width an option in the admin menu?

[Gary]

I have a question as reagrds this - how will it affects portals eg tinyportal, simple portal etc.

Will those sit to the left and right of this max 1200 width, or will their content blocks be jammed into this space as well?

They'd be within that max-width of 1200. But as always that can always be adjusted with a single CSS change.

[landyvlad]

Thank you

[Gwenwyfar]

@Gwenwyfar: Why don't you just make the max width an option in the admin menu?

Could be done. The option had already been removed when this change was made, so we would need to add it back.

[Kindred]

I believe that it should be added back...   This removal actually annoys me as well (and yes, I know it can be easily changed with a single line in CSS - but I should not have to change core files for this, IMO - this is appropriate fr a setting)

[Gwenwyfar]

Don't look at me, I also wanted to use it and it wasn't there anymore I don't know why it was removed, would need to check the history.

(You can blame me for being lazy to add it back though )

[Kindred]

https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1/issues/4628

[Illori]

i believe it was removed to help make the theme responsive.

[Kindred]

I disagree with the removal and disagree with the need to remove it to make the theme responsive -- because I have half a dozen themes that are responsive and use a % width and half a dozen others than use a remarkably wide width at high screen resolutions.

[Gwenwyfar]

i believe it was removed to help make the theme responsive.

It doesn't make any difference, you can have both. It is a max-width, not width. And when things start to break the setting will simply be ignored (~900px, theme and mod authors that add a sidebar will need to ignore it at a larger size)

[Illori]

i believe it was removed to help make the theme responsive.

It doesn't make any difference, you can have both.

i cant at this time find the PR related to it, but i believe it was related to making the theme responsive or it was thought the feature was no longer needed since it is responsive.

[Gwenwyfar]

Here's the issue: https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1/issues/2858

The theme being responsive doesn't change things for the desktop view. So at the end this is about if we want the setting or not, and having the setting is just a matter of convenience and making things easier.

[Kindred]

it is also about removing functionality that has existed since v1.
It's not always wrong to remove functionality/settings... especially if they are not used - but it should always be carefully considered -- and I do not feel that it was carefully considered or warranted to remove it in this case

[GigaWatt]

Agree with Kindred on this. You should be able to do these sorts of things from the admin menu, not in your cPanel.

[Jailer]

I'm with Kindred on this as well. The max width really messes with the on page content with simple portal and a max width theme. Yes it can be changed via CSS but an option in the admin panel would make this much easier to change and would be greatly appreciated.

An example of when I have run into this in the past.

[Gwenwyfar]

It's already going to get re-added. And regardless, it's good to have in mind some people use ultra-wide monitors (or just very large ones), they can do without content stretching across 2500px+ wide

And yes, 720px is very narrow by any standards, if that's what you had to deal with. 1200px is larger than most sites that have any limits.