Internets - now in WIDESCREEN (?)

[aubergine]

Alternate name for thread is "Why isn't my internet in widescreen?"

This site uses the whole screen, sure, but I often look at IGN and their irritatingly tiny lettering and wonder why the site only uses a thin strip at the centre of the screen. (yes I know I can increase the font size but it tends to have a knock-on effect of deforming the site in odd ways. and I'm lazy.)

I read something once saying (words to the effect) that Internet Explorer 6 was holding back the whole internet and people should be forced to upgrade or something. If I've even remembered that accurately, does anyone have a greater insight into why sites don't display in 16:9?

[Lazlow]

They still teach web designers to design for the lowest common screen resolution - 800x600.

They generally don't design in widescreen because not everyone has a 16:9/16:10 monitor (like myself). Plus you have to design for a variety of browsers and operating systems.

[Stevorooni]

I do my shit for 1024x768 resolution minimum, screw anyone lower than that.

Things like forums are easy to stretch because they're basically one column for the user then the other for the post, but when you get into more complicated websites that also have to include side menus, images, videos, advertisements and text then it can get a little extreme trying to make something that stretches properly and is also compatible across multiple browsers.

[TAT]

True story: I was just thinking yesterday that games would be more fun on the 360 if I had a widescreen TV.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Zooming in firefox increases the size of everything, including images, to fill up my 1920x1200 screen. http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q321/fishfishmonkeyhat/Emoticons/101-Eng101.gif

[sausage]

Yes I too am sick to death of clicking the zoom button to 125%. It's bloody outrageous in this day and age that we have to put up with such archaic methods.

[tau]

Eh, I prefer how things are now. I expect websites to only take up less than half my dual screen's 2560x1600 res which means i can have a lot of shit on it at once.

Also, think of it as a book. Would you really want to read a novel in "widescreen"?

[SOX]

What's this got to do with games?

[Lex]

Ctrl+mousewheelup

[Cobla]

I do my shit for 1024x768 resolution minimum, screw anyone lower than that.Yeah IMO the general rule for web design is about 960px wide. This allows for a scrollbar and window frame (with a little extra room) at 1024x768 resolution.

If there are people out there using lower resolutions (and there must be!) then I reckon at least half of the sites designed in the last 5 years wouldn't fit horizontally on their screen. Sucks to be them! ;)

[TrinityJayOne]

CSS styling sheets
Cascading Style Sheet styling sheets?

[Watchers]

True story: I was just thinking yesterday that games would be more fun on the 360 if I had a widescreen TV.

Oh dear.

[aubergine]

What's this got to do with games?

The internet is for games, and widescreen is for games, therefore.

I'm pretty much for everything being automatic all of the time. The electrowizards should know what resolution my screen is and have made their webparchments with the ability to morph to the most pleasing size. With an option for manual control for the kind of perverts who like that sort of thing.

[Fenrir]

I do my shit for 1024x768 resolution minimum, screw anyone lower than that.

Things like forums are easy to stretch because they're basically one column for the user then the other for the post, but when you get into more complicated websites that also have to include side menus, images, videos, advertisements and text then it can get a little extreme trying to make something that stretches properly and is also compatible across multiple browsers.
^Stevo is my proxy; but,

I'm pretty much for everything being automatic all of the time. The electrowizards should know what resolution my screen is and have made their webparchments with the ability to morph to the most pleasing size.
Yeah, I wish. Unfortunately we're still using raster images which don't tend to resize well, and stylesheets are still kind-of primitive. There are some vector image components coming into HTML; also, CSS 2 came with a heap of new features, and CSS 3 is looking promising, but I think the RFC for algebraic height/width specifiers got scrapped, which is what I'd say really would've helped. Also, browser incompatibilities are still very real.
JavaScript can probably sort all of this shit out, but nobody really deems it worth doing for most sites, the idea of using JavaScript to glue shit together rather than for its intended purpose of dynamic/interactive content tends to grate, and a lot of web developers still insist on working with the assumption that the user has JavaScript switched off. >_>

Even with these things, though, it's still a pain in the arse even determining what graceful resizing of some graphic designer's lovechild should even be.

[Stevorooni]

you almost need to write 2 different versions of your pages, one for 16:10 and one for 4:3

But that's ridiculous, which is why everyone does it for 4:3 then put pretty background pictures to fill in the spaces on the side

[StorminNorman]

Cascading Style Sheet styling sheets?

It's like an automatic ATM machine.

[Blue]

It's like an automatic ATM machine.Which are much easier to use than a manual ATM machine, as far as I'm concerned.

[tau]

So it seems my first post didn't exist...

Why do you want websites in widescreen? Do you prefer reading books in landscape?

[Silverwolf]

So it seems my first post didn't exist...

Why do you want websites in widescreen? Do you prefer reading books in landscape?

People love more useless shit clogging up their screen

[Cobla]

and a lot of web developers still insist on working with the assumption that the user has JavaScript switched off. >_>You have to though. If you do all your scripting in JS and a user has it switched off (or moderately restricted, ala the default setting in IE8) then they probably aren't going to have a very good experience with the site.

It seems like with each new version of IE JavaScript becomes less and less useful, and more and more things have to be done on the server side. Slightly annoying to have to re-write code, but at least in PHP I can predict exactly what will happen as the code gets executed the same for every user.

[TrinityJayOne]

IE
probably aren't going to have a very good experience with the site.
The website is irrelevant, it's IE.

I can predict exactly what will happen as the code gets executed the same for every user.
Except when using IE, which has it's own wacky ideas on how HTML works (although admittedly it has gotten better).

[Fenrir]

You have to though. If you do all your scripting in JS and a user has it switched off (or moderately restricted, ala the default setting in IE8) then they probably aren't going to have a very good experience with the site.
Yeah, I know it's justified. That doesn't mean it doesn't shit me, though.

It seems like with each new version of IE JavaScript becomes less and less useful, and more and more things have to be done on the server side. Slightly annoying to have to re-write code, but at least in PHP I can predict exactly what will happen as the code gets executed the same for every user.
Being a semantic prick, IE doesn't even have JavaScript. >_>

I'm pretty sure their pure ECMAScript dialect (JScript) is indistinguishable from JavaScript now, though, and IE's DOM tends to pick up most of the bits and pieces the W3C standardizes, that Firefox pioneers, etc, a "generation" afterwards - so you're generally only hacking in the cutting-edge. I generally don't mind branching code where there's the "standard way" and the "IE equivalent", anyway, at least ever since I stumbled upon the MDC JavaScript reference (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript) - Mozilla have been good enough to explain the differences in IE's DOM where relevant, so it's all in one reference. :)

I don't know about using PHP to format HTML for browser incompatibilities, though. I prefer the whole content management system/templating approach on the server-side, separation of concerns, etc - I started refusing to intermix PHP and HTML years ago, and I'm trying to move all my work to Java EE/Servlets/Glassfish (sans JSP).
I'm coming from a traditional software dev approach, though, so YMMV.

Except when using IE, which has it's own wacky ideas on how HTML works (although admittedly it has gotten better).
You pretty much selective-quoted Cobla completely out of context - PHP has practically nothing to do with IE.

[Antwandemarco]

Ctrl+mousewheelup


this...

[TrinityJayOne]

You pretty much selective-quoted Cobla completely out of context - PHP has practically nothing to do with IE.
Touche, perhaps I should have said "websites".

[Cobla]

I don't know about using PHP to format HTML for browser incompatibilities, though. Yeah I find CSS hacks to be the best way of getting cross-browser formatting to work. It's only really IE that presents a problem though of course. PHP I use for all my dynamic content and for form processing etc. I used to use JS both for this stuff and also to animate menus / rollovers etc. The latter I now do all in CSS and it's about a million times better.I prefer the whole content management system/templating approach on the server-side, separation of concerns, etc - I started refusing to intermix PHP and HTML years ago, and I'm trying to move all my work to Java EE/Servlets/Glassfish (sans JSP).What CMS do you like? I have yet to find one that is truly useful to my needs, though I am pretty fussy... ;)

[Fenrir]

PHP I use for all my dynamic content and for form processing etc. I used to use JS both for this stuff
Hmm, you definitely want access permissions, data sourcing etc to be server-side; but I strongly suggest form validation happens in both client-side JavaScript and server-side whatever (PHP, Java et al), so you don't waste time server-side if someone throws invalid data into the form, but still catch anyone who either has JS switched off or gets meddlesome with their POST requests. Usually it just means c&p-ing the validation code and adjusting the syntax, anyway.

and also to animate menus / rollovers etc. The latter I now do all in CSS and it's about a million times better.
Ah, there's still plenty of utility in JavaScript for widget-building, though. I've been throwing together things like draggable panels to rearrange records in an index, etc.

What CMS do you like? I have yet to find one that is truly useful to my needs, though I am pretty fussy... ;)
Oh, slight misunderstanding, there. I've never used a productised CMS, commercial or free, in a finished site - I build content management systems into websites tailored to the needs of whoever's using the site. The one I'm working on now will have the typical stuff, ie articles, content pages, file archive, user permissions, layout templating etc, as well as a "current business/initiatives" system* and a survey system, all from scratch to my client's needs. I decided to go from scratch because the current CMS crop didn't look appealing, and I despise hacking functionality into an existing code-base when I could do it my way from scratch just as easily.

I'm thinking about going further with it when I'm done, though. I want to go as far as making the various subsystems (articles, content pages etc) pluggable modules for the core system, where each plugin subsystem will have its own access permissions, similar to the users themselves. Also thinking about building in some sort of update manager, so I can manage a common CMS codebase and update a bajillion clients' sites at the click of a button.
Early days, though.

*I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the client wants out of this. >_>

[tau]

Dear god, could you guys have made this thread any more boring?

[Fenrir]

I dunno, I think this is a step up from "why isn't this website in widescreen?", but ymmv.

[sheeps]

I like how it is now. Not only is stuff easier to read when it's not spread out so far but you can use the rest of the screen for other applications and it also means browsing websites on mobile phones, namely iPhones, is easier.

Always design for a width of 1024, sideways scrolling is a horrible thing.

[Sweating Bullets]

Moving/moved this into the Tech Thread

[sausage]

I don't like it in here... there's sticky stuff on the seat and crumpled up paper towels everywhere.