Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed width (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda stuff. I like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll vertically as much. etc.
I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably release a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it really hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:23:50 +1100, Viper007Bond <vi...@viper007bond.com> wrote: > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed width > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda stuff. I > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll vertically as > much. etc.
> I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably release > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it really > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
I know *exactly* what you mean, Others seem to want it small to keep the editing windows down to a managable size (aparantly they dont like full window width editing).
Just adds a style tag to the admin headers to remove the max-width on the wrap and whatnot. _______________________________________________ wp-hackers mailing list wp-hack...@lists.automattic.com http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a > fixed width > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda > stuff. I > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll > vertically as > much. etc.
> I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably > release > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it > really > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:34 AM, DD32 <wordpr...@dd32.id.au> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:23:50 +1100, Viper007Bond <vi...@viper007bond.com> > wrote:
> > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed > width > > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> > Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda > stuff. I > > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll > vertically as > > much. etc.
> > I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably > release > > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it > really > > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
> I know *exactly* what you mean, Others seem to want it small to keep the > editing windows down to a managable size (aparantly they dont like full > window width editing).
> Just adds a style tag to the admin headers to remove the max-width on the > wrap and whatnot. > _______________________________________________ > wp-hackers mailing list > wp-hack...@lists.automattic.com > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Viper007Bond wrote: > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed width > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda stuff. I > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll vertically as > much. etc.
> I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably release > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it really > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
If using TMCE you can always go to Fullscreen and have it as big as your monitor would let you :)
There are a lot of studies about optimal line length, onscreen readability, etc. All suggest that 10" is best, but note that most users prefer 6" - 8". The current admin follows these findings.
Also most themes have a fixed width for the post area, usually about 8", so keeping TMCE at about 8" wide would mimic how the post will look when published.
In any case, try typing a 1000 words post in full screen in TMCE to see how it works for you.
If people want the box smaller, then they should just resize their browser window, and people with large, widescreen monitors (including myself) should be able to use more of it to write...
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Andrew Ozz <ad...@laptoptips.ca> wrote: > Viper007Bond wrote: > > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed > width > > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> > Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda > stuff. I > > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll > vertically as > > much. etc.
> > I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably > release > > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it > really > > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
> If using TMCE you can always go to Fullscreen and have it as big as your > monitor would let you :)
> There are a lot of studies about optimal line length, onscreen > readability, etc. All suggest that 10" is best, but note that most users > prefer 6" - 8". The current admin follows these findings.
> Also most themes have a fixed width for the post area, usually about 8", > so keeping TMCE at about 8" wide would mimic how the post will look when > published.
> In any case, try typing a 1000 words post in full screen in TMCE to see > how it works for you.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Andrew Ozz <ad...@laptoptips.ca> wrote: > Viper007Bond wrote: > > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed > width > > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> > Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda > stuff. I > > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll > vertically as > > much. etc.
> > I realize it's an easy edit on my part to fix it (and I'll probably > release > > a plugin to fix this if it stays this way), but please reconsider this > > change. All that white space to the right looks ugly as sin and it > really > > hampers the ease of use of the admin area.
> If using TMCE you can always go to Fullscreen and have it as big as your > monitor would let you :)
> There are a lot of studies about optimal line length, onscreen > readability, etc. All suggest that 10" is best, but note that most users > prefer 6" - 8". The current admin follows these findings.
> Also most themes have a fixed width for the post area, usually about 8", > so keeping TMCE at about 8" wide would mimic how the post will look when > published.
> In any case, try typing a 1000 words post in full screen in TMCE to see > how it works for you.
Mr. Awesome says: He agrees with the others about the "fixed-width" stuff. But really the only thing that "drives-me" is the scroll affect in certain areas of the Control Panel. Example: Write Post page, Media Library (Has a HUGE one), Manage > Posts landing page don't have one now, but I'm sure it will happen sooner or later. The right side (where the post's status is) is currently near snug with the Vertical Scroll Bar as of now....
Things are being pushed towards the right of page, and I'm thinking it's padding on SOME of the areas.... but the fixed-width settings aren't helping either sigh. It's not really THAT bad though, it could be worse all over... I suppose it's just near impossible to please everyone though... *Shrug* _______________________________________________ wp-hackers mailing list wp-hack...@lists.automattic.com http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 04:23 -0800, Viper007Bond wrote: > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a fixed width > (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda stuff. I > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll vertically as > much. etc.
+1000000. If the lines are too long, I'll just resize my browser, thankyou very much.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 04:23:50AM -0800, Viper007Bond wrote: > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a > fixed width (designed for a 1024 pixel screen). > Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this.
Yes, that is one of my pet issues, too. I strongly think that if people think that without the fixed width, it is too wide, then it is their browser's bug that it shows it too wide. If the CSS/HTML does not give a width, then the browser should pick a good one, depending on user's preferences.
I have to say that as long as small screen sizes are well-served, accommodating huge screen widths isn't something that in my mind trumps the usability improvements for most people of having a reasonable width for writing in. I would speculate that many people can benefit from slimmer content fields without knowing about it, so even if they CAN resize their window, they just won't think to do so. Thus I think working a humane width into the design by default is a good idea (I personally use CSS stylesheets to change the full-size display of images in Safari and stuff like that, but of the normal users I've spoken to, most don't even think of things like bumping up font sizes when it's too small to read, so expecting them to investigate their browser looking for preferences that will modify field widths is probably unrealistic).
That said, I am also in deep hate with the left-alignment of the whole page content, it's kind of insane to me. You say that most blogs have a fixed width content well, well they are usually also center-aligned, having things on the left always feels like 1997 to me.
Here's a screenshot with the whole thing centered and the top-right menus accounted for. I think it solves 90% of the aesthetic concerns expressed above, and anyone who really needs a huge-width content field can easily use a plugin or 2 lines in admin.css to get what they want.
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 04:23:50AM -0800, Viper007Bond wrote:
> > Just updated my SVN install and noticed that now everything is a > > fixed width (designed for a 1024 pixel screen).
> > Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this.
> Yes, that is one of my pet issues, too. I strongly think that if > people think that without the fixed width, it is too wide, then it is > their browser's bug that it shows it too wide. If the CSS/HTML does > not give a width, then the browser should pick a good one, depending > on user's preferences.
Although I personally rather the admin panel aligned to the left, perhaps it could be an idea to give users a choice between the two. A radio button choice in the "Misc" section of "Options" with:
* Fixed width * Fluid width
Or something along those lines. We can add a class to the <body> tag to say whether its fluid or fixed, so styling it would be a piece of cake.
There seems to be lots of people in favor of both routes, and giving them both is possible, so why not? Just my two cents :P
> Words cannot emphasize how much I am against this. I personally run > 1600x1200 for the sole reason of not having to deal with this kinda stuff. I > like my input boxes nice and wide. I like not having to scroll vertically as > much. etc.
I'm in agreement here. I think keeping the admin the full width of the browser is the most logical behavior. Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the window like they want it. That makes more sense, to me, than preventing users from having a full- width admin if they want it (or having to resort to plugins for such an obvious behavior).
Personally I liked the first layout most, with the "fluid" right margin. It made the page look well balanced even in very wide window. The only problem with it was that it needed to shrink to about 10px at 800px wide window and grow from there faster.
While trying different ways to put min-width in IE6 without breaking anything, one of the layouts was to split the page into 3 main blocks: editor, submitbox and settings, then float them all left, so they would line up horizontally in wide window or drop one under the other in narrow window. That looked good too, although a bit unexpected.
Alex Hempton-Smith wrote: > Although I personally rather the admin panel aligned to the left, perhaps it > could be an idea to give users a choice between the two. A radio button > choice in the "Misc" section of "Options" with:
> * Fixed width > * Fluid width
> Or something along those lines. We can add a class to the <body> tag to say > whether its fluid or fixed, so styling it would be a piece of cake.
> There seems to be lots of people in favor of both routes, and giving them > both is possible, so why not? Just my two cents :P
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:11PM -0800, Charles wrote: > > Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the > > window like they want it.
> In practice, Windows apps (more so than Mac apps) are generally used > full-screen.
Please provide pointers to studies backing that up. I've never known that to be the case.
I generally never use apps in full-screen mode on my Windows machines, slide-shows typically being the exception.
I use 1920x1200 monitors (both on the desktops and the laptop). I've resized my browser so that e.g. the WordPress admin screens are at a comfortable width to work on.
I don't really care what the WordPress default is, as long as it can be modified with a plugin. Of course, my preference would be for a fluid layout like before, to match my current work habits.
Kimmo, I think what he meant was Windows apps tend to be used in "maximized" mode, rather than fullscreen. I personally tend to conform to that standard, but I can't speak for statistics...
:: Dan Larkin
On 3/3/08, Kimmo Suominen <ki...@global-wire.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:11PM -0800, Charles wrote: > > > Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the > > > window like they want it.
> > In practice, Windows apps (more so than Mac apps) are generally used > > full-screen.
> Please provide pointers to studies backing that up. I've never known > that to be the case.
> I generally never use apps in full-screen mode on my Windows machines, > slide-shows typically being the exception.
> I use 1920x1200 monitors (both on the desktops and the laptop). I've > resized my browser so that e.g. the WordPress admin screens are at a > comfortable width to work on.
> I don't really care what the WordPress default is, as long as it can be > modified with a plugin. Of course, my preference would be for a fluid > layout like before, to match my current work habits.
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:11PM -0800, Charles wrote: >>> Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the >>> window like they want it.
>> In practice, Windows apps (more so than Mac apps) are generally used >> full-screen.
> Please provide pointers to studies backing that up. I've never known > that to be the case.
I know a number of (non-geek) Windows users who don't even know that you _can_ run their browser smaller than fullscreen.
I doubt you'll find a lot of studies, but there's a whooooole lot of anecdotal evidence. It's a trend -- nobody claimed it was an absolute.
Here's another bit of anecdotal evidence for you: Look at the number of fixed-width sites out there that assume ~ 1000 px wide. That's aimed squarely at Joe User running 1024x768 maximized. I visited three bank websites the other day, and they _all_ did it.
> I generally never use apps in full-screen mode on my Windows machines, > slide-shows typically being the exception.
Yes, but you're a geek. ;)
Personally, I prefer sites that are designed fluid up to a point -- that is, max-width. Even better if based on em or %, so that as font size rises, so does the width. Looks good on a smaller screen (or small window), and scales well on higher resolutions if the user bumps the font size.
Oh, and one last point -- many browsers allow you to resize a text window. Safari, for one. i think Firefox too, with a plugin....
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Matt Mullenweg <m...@mullenweg.com> wrote: > P.S. You should really try out full-screen mode on TinyMCE, it's fun.
TinyMCE is hardly fun IMO. I only have it enabled there for testing my plugins under it. On all my live blogs, I literally delete the files from my wp-includes folder. ;)
Writing my own HTML > having some script attempt to write it and screw it up
> Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the > window like they want it.
In practice, Windows apps (more so than Mac apps) are generally used full-screen.
Well-designed sites and web apps take that into account by using either (1) use a fixed-width layout (i.e. A List Apart), or (2) use a fluid layout but ensuring that line lengths remain reasonable through fixed-width containers (i.e. Google Reader).
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:49:11PM -0800, Charles wrote: > >>> Like any other piece of software, users can and will size the > >>> window like they want it.
> >> In practice, Windows apps (more so than Mac apps) are generally used > >> full-screen.
> > Please provide pointers to studies backing that up. I've never known > > that to be the case.
> I know a number of (non-geek) Windows users who don't even know that > you _can_ run their browser smaller than fullscreen.
> I doubt you'll find a lot of studies, but there's a whooooole lot of > anecdotal evidence. It's a trend -- nobody claimed it was an absolute.
> Here's another bit of anecdotal evidence for you: Look at the number > of fixed-width sites out there that assume ~ 1000 px wide. That's > aimed squarely at Joe User running 1024x768 maximized. I visited > three bank websites the other day, and they _all_ did it.
> > I generally never use apps in full-screen mode on my Windows machines, > > slide-shows typically being the exception.
> Yes, but you're a geek. ;)
> Personally, I prefer sites that are designed fluid up to a point -- > that is, max-width. Even better if based on em or %, so that as font > size rises, so does the width. Looks good on a smaller screen (or > small window), and scales well on higher resolutions if the user > bumps the font size.
> Oh, and one last point -- many browsers allow you to resize a text > window. Safari, for one. i think Firefox too, with a plugin....
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 20:23 +0000, Alex Hempton-Smith wrote: > Although I personally rather the admin panel aligned to the left, perhaps it > could be an idea to give users a choice between the two. A radio button > choice in the "Misc" section of "Options" with:
> * Fixed width > * Fluid width
Or you can just add a <link rel="alternate stylesheet"> to the <head> which contains the necessary extra styles.
In fact, why don't we ship WP with an alternate stylesheet with this tweak? That way, people like me can finally shut up about it, and it doesn't affect those who like it fixed width.
The alternate stylesheet doesn't have to have anything more than:
body { width: 100%;
}
...or however the fluid width got achieved last time.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Jeremy Visser <jeremy.vis...@gmail.com> wrote: > In fact, why don't we ship WP with an alternate stylesheet with this > tweak? That way, people like me can finally shut up about it, and it > doesn't affect those who like it fixed width.
I dont think all browsers handle alternate stylesheets. I'd prefer the Option way, but I have the feeling it won't make it through...
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:40:05PM -0600, Stephen Rider wrote:
> [... re: running Windows apps full-screen ...]
> I doubt you'll find a lot of studies, but there's a whooooole lot of > anecdotal evidence. It's a trend -- nobody claimed it was an absolute.
> Here's another bit of anecdotal evidence for you: Look at the number > of fixed-width sites out there that assume ~ 1000 px wide. That's > aimed squarely at Joe User running 1024x768 maximized. I visited > three bank websites the other day, and they _all_ did it.
Based on the Google Analytics data for sites I'm dealing with, that is the common minimum area for the top 2-3 screen (monitor) sizes.
Because site designers always have more data available than will fit on the screen comfortably, they choose to treat the (most common) screen size as the space available for them. Some remember to subtract a few pixels for browser elements (e.g. scroll bar, window title, menus etc).
This means that people with small screens practically have no other option than to run their browser maximized.
This is probably one of those chicken-or-egg situations... :)
> >I generally never use apps in full-screen mode on my Windows machines, > >slide-shows typically being the exception.
> Yes, but you're a geek. ;)
Guilty as charged. :)
> Even better if [max-width is] based on em or %, so that as font > size rises, so does the width.
Excellent tip -- thank you! I hadn't thought of that and have been using px with max-width. Will be using em in the future.
