Wikipedia+Full Screen = Mess?
Whoosh
the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I wonder if
other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the Full Screen
option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically. I think this is
the first time I've noticed this and I use Full Screen quite a bit. Is it
just me? Latest Opera on XP 32bit SP3.
Eik
<reply-t...@no-email.thanks> wrote:
> I just noticed this the other day and thought it might be a glitch with
> the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I wonder if
> other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the Full Screen
> option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically.
Not here, the layout stays exactly the same.
Norm DePlume
Hello,
No such issue here, using 10.10 build 1893 under XP Pro SP 2.
Laurent Jumet
Hello Eik !
Eik <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I just noticed this the other day and thought it might be a glitch with
>> the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I wonder if
>> other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the Full Screen
>> option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically.
> Not here, the layout stays exactly the same.
Some people report that the last XP patches had an unpredicatble result on their screen.
--
Laurent Jumet - Point de Chat, Liï¿œge, BELGIUM
KeyID: 0xCFAF704C
[Restore address to laurent.jumet for e-mail reply.]
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
No issues here either.
Why do you use the F11 "kiosk" method? All menus go away. Why not just
maximize the window instead? (middle box in upper-right corner of title
bar)
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Whoosh
>> with the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I
>> wonder if other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the
>> Full Screen option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically.
>> I think this is the first time I've noticed this and I use Full
>> Screen quite a bit. Is it just me? Latest Opera on XP 32bit SP3.
>
> No issues here either.
> Why do you use the F11 "kiosk" method? All menus go away.
I value my vertical real estate as I'm using a widescreen monitor. I
don't waste space with menus I never use. All menu items I need are
memorized after I use them a few times.
> Why not just maximize the window instead? (middle box in upper-right
> corner of title
> bar)
See above re: wasting space. Using a mouse wastes time. By the time one
has moved from the keyboard to the mouse I've already done the keyboard
shortcut. Then you have to move the mouse to the destination, click it,
and come back to the keyboard. The keyboard shortcut takes about 1/5 the
time unless you're hopelessly uncoordinated of course. If you think about
it, one should only use the mouse when you're learning the program. Its
just a time hindering crutch if its continually used afterwards.
Or....the less you use the mouse the better.
Whoosh
>>> the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I wonder if
>>> other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the Full Screen
>>> option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically.
>
>> Not here, the layout stays exactly the same.
>
> on their screen.
Interesting. I haven't had any updates done in a few months. I wonder
what that means...lol.
Whoosh
>> the website but since it occurs all the time, maybe not. I wonder if
>> other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the Full Screen
>> option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically. I think this is
>> the first time I've noticed this and I use Full Screen quite a bit. Is
>> it
>> just me? Latest Opera on XP 32bit SP3.
>
> Hello,
> No such issue here, using 10.10 build 1893 under XP Pro SP 2.
Well its only one website and its obviously in my machine somewhere.
Thanks for the feedback. :)
Naruki Bigglesworth
Alt+Space bar, X.
That is all.
Yossarian
> Well its only one website and its obviously in my machine somewhere.
> Thanks for the feedback. :)
It is on my machine to. Right pane is maximized and left pane is moved
down with missing wikipedia globe. But i don't care because don't us
F11 often.
excuse my english :)
--
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
SaGS
news:op.u4bh5vwsnc7aas@----------.wp.shawcable.net...
> ...
>>> I wonder if other have noticed this on http://wikipedia.org. Using the
>>> Full Screen option (F11) I noticed the layout changes dramatically.
Opera 10.00 on WinXP-SP2 here.
The page http://wikipedia.org looks OK in full-screen mode.
But for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page the layout indeed changes
when in full-screen mode as described in another post. I also notice it
switches to the font I set as the default, and links become underlined (they
are not underlined in normal 'windowed' mode) and change color to the
default one (change Opera options for link colors from the default blue to
see this better).
I guess Opera fails to apply some/all of the stylesheets refered from this
page. Experimenting with Opera Dragonfly, it's the
http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?254z2 stylesheet that
makes the/a major difference. Why it's not applied in full-screen mode, I
don't know.
Peter Krefting
> But for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page the layout indeed changes
> when in full-screen mode as described in another post.
That is expected behaviour. When in full-screen mode, Opera uses the
"projection" media type, not the "screen" media type as it uses when in
normal windowed mode.
Read http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/578/ for more information about
the media types supported by Opera.
--
\\// Peter Krefting - Core Technology Developer, Opera Software ASA
Eik
> When in full-screen mode, Opera uses the "projection" media type, not
> the "screen" media type as it uses when in normal windowed mode.
I thought this changed in Opera 9.5, and full-screen mode now uses
'screen' too? I remember there being numerous changes like this to help
make Opera behave more like other browsers, including changing from
default padding to margin on the <body> element.
Whoosh
>> Thanks for the feedback. :)
>
> down with missing Wikipedia globe. But I don't care because I don't use
> F11 often.
What version of Opera and what version of Windows are you using?
Me: Win XP Pro SP3 with latest Opera (as of a week ago).
Whoosh
>> changes when in full-screen mode as described in another post.
>
> That is expected behaviour. When in full-screen mode, Opera uses the
> "projection" media type, not the "screen" media type as it uses when in
> normal windowed mode.
> Read http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/578/ for more information
> about the media types supported by Opera.
It sure would be great if Full Screen mode could be the default.
Especially as 16:9 monitors are becoming more popular people are losing
height and need to eradicate any and all space wasting toolbars.
Remco Lanting
Most sites don't use all the horizontal space, so it would get you a few
pixels vertically but you'll lose a lot more horizontally. I have the
panels on the left and the tab bar on the right, and usually the menu bar
is turned off too. This gives me the best usage of space I can get. The
screenshot [1] has only one tab, but I have between 10 and 20 per window,
with three windows in total (on three different desktops). Space for the
site in the centre happens to be exactly 1280 pixels. If I *really* need
vertical space, I just turn my screen 90 degrees ;)
With proper use of media queries the lack of vertical space (or horizontal
space growing much more rapidly) disabling horizontal toolbars shouldn't
be needed any more. From my perspective, Opera doesn't need to change, the
sites need to.
[1] http://download.remcol.ath.cx/screenshot-opera.png
--
Remco Lanting
[Unofficial Opera bug tracker links]
http://opera.remcol.ath.cx/bugs |
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=217364 |
remco.lanting...@gmail.com
Whoosh
>>>> changes when in full-screen mode as described in another post.
>>>
>>> That is expected behaviour. When in full-screen mode, Opera uses the
>>> "projection" media type, not the "screen" media type as it uses when
>>> in normal windowed mode.
>>> Read http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/578/ for more information
>>> about the media types supported by Opera.
>>
>> It sure would be great if Full Screen mode could be the default.
>> Especially as 16:9 monitors are becoming more popular people are losing
>> height and need to eradicate any and all space wasting toolbars.
>
> Most sites don't use all the horizontal space, so it would get you a few
> pixels vertically but you'll lose a lot more horizontally.
I'm not sure what planet you hail from but here on planet Earth there is
hardly a website in existence that isn't more than 1050 pixels in length
which is a pretty common standard for monitor height in resolution. This
encompasses 17" and 19" monitors at 1280 x 1024 as well as any widescreen
going up to 22". Only a small percentage of the population uses monitors
that are 24" or larger (1920 x 1200) though even now most 24" monitors are
leaning toward the 16:9 aspect ratio which means even a 24" only gives you
1024 in height. Which means its over one page in viewing space for most
readers. Which means vertical space is at a premium. Everybody knows
that getting on the first page of most people's screen is good and makes a
big difference in readership.
> I have the panels on the left and the tab bar on the right, and usually
> the menu bar is turned off too. This gives me the best usage of space I
> can get.
No. Full Screen and using your memory and keyboard shortcuts gives you
the best usage of space.
> The screenshot [1] has only one tab, but I have between 10 and 20 per
> window, with three windows in total (on three different desktops). Space
> for the site in the centre happens to be exactly 1280 pixels. If I
> *really* need vertical space, I just turn my screen 90 degrees ;)
>
> With proper use of media queries the lack of vertical space (or
> horizontal space growing much more rapidly) disabling horizontal
> toolbars shouldn't be needed any more. From my perspective, Opera
> doesn't need to change, the sites need to.
> [1] http://download.remcol.ath.cx/screenshot-opera.png
You are using a small font enabling much more info in your usable space
than I use. And that many older people prefer.
What is your monitor size and resolution you are using? (Nice screen shot
by the way - it came out well.)
I don't know of any monitor with a height of 1280. Usually 1200 for a
16:10 24" LCD (1920 x 1200) or 1600 for a 2560 x 1600 16:10 30" LCD.
Yossarian
Win XP pro SP3 /Opera 10.10_1893 on IBM thinkpad laptop.
Remco Lanting
I doubt 20 pixels more or less would make a difference if the page is very
long. Yes, you want to be on the first page, but if you go to pretty much
any site, the content that matters the most is already at the top. So no
scrolling is needed. Since I'm using a widescreen monitor and most sites
have a width of at most 1280 pixels that they use, I'd lose 640 pixels
horizontally to empty space. From where I stand, I'd trade 640 pixels
against 20 pixels any time.
>> I have the panels on the left and the tab bar on the right, and usually
>> the menu bar is turned off too. This gives me the best usage of space I
>> can get.
>
> No. Full Screen and using your memory and keyboard shortcuts gives you
> the best usage of space.
Things like this are very personal, which is why I wrote "gives me"
instead of "is the best usage for everyone". I have more windows than just
Opera open, and a task bar at the bottom which allows me to see if a
window needs attention. In full screen I would lose that ability. Using
memory to navigate is nice until you have dozens of tabs. I could get rid
of the tab bar if I would use the windows panel, but at the moment the
tabs work well for me. Of course I do use keyboard shortcuts and mouse
gestures to speed up my browsing.
>> The screenshot [1] has only one tab, but I have between 10 and 20 per
>> window, with three windows in total (on three different desktops).
>> Space for the site in the centre happens to be exactly 1280 pixels. If
>> I *really* need vertical space, I just turn my screen 90 degrees ;)
>>
>> With proper use of media queries the lack of vertical space (or
>> horizontal space growing much more rapidly) disabling horizontal
>> toolbars shouldn't be needed any more. From my perspective, Opera
>> doesn't need to change, the sites need to.
>> [1] http://download.remcol.ath.cx/screenshot-opera.png
>
> You are using a small font enabling much more info in your usable space
> than I use. And that many older people prefer.
> What is your monitor size and resolution you are using? (Nice screen
> shot by the way - it came out well.)
> I don't know of any monitor with a height of 1280. Usually 1200 for a
> 16:10 24" LCD (1920 x 1200) or 1600 for a 2560 x 1600 16:10 30" LCD.
The 1280 is the width of the centre part, not the height. I thought the
context made that clear. I'm on a 24" at 1920x1080 (Samsung SyncMaster
2494HM). The current setup gives me 975 pixels vertical space, which I
find plenty. As for the font, it's the standard (12px?) size. I'm still
young, so it works very well for me.
Changing the font size changes everything, since you can have less info on
the screen. If you really need vertical space that badly, get yourself a
widescreen monitor that you can turn 90 degrees. You'll pay a bit more but
it gets you almost twice the height you have normally. Width is limited
though, so in the end it's very personal what works best for you.
Whoosh
20 pixels? Don't you mean about 200 pixels? The point is why not use the space is its there? I notice on some websites the text just automatically conforms to my width. I suppose when they are trying to place ads, things get more challenging. But the best designs should just melt into your screen, no matter what its width. But whatever the case, the more info in the width, the less info in the height. And more info gets on that first page when opened by the user.
> Yes, you want to be on the first page, but if you go to pretty much
> any site, the content that matters the most is already at the top. So no
> scrolling is needed.
My point is that you can never have enough space. Its important to not waste it.
> Since I'm using a widescreen monitor and most sites
> have a width of at most 1280 pixels that they use, I'd lose 640 pixels
> horizontally to empty space. From where I stand, I'd trade 640 pixels
> against 20 pixels any time.
Well since a 22" monitor on the used market frequently sells for under $100 and it has a 1680 width, I'd say web designers better wake up and realize they are living in the past if they don't design for wider displays.
>>> I have the panels on the left and the tab bar on the right, and usually
>>> the menu bar is turned off too. This gives me the best usage of space I
>>> can get.
>>
>> No. Full Screen and using your memory and keyboard shortcuts gives you
>> the best usage of space.
>
> Things like this are very personal, which is why I wrote "gives me"
> instead of "is the best usage for everyone". I have more windows than just
> Opera open, and a task bar at the bottom which allows me to see if a
> window needs attention. In full screen I would lose that ability. Using
> memory to navigate is nice until you have dozens of tabs. I could get rid
> of the tab bar if I would use the windows panel, but at the moment the
> tabs work well for me. Of course I do use keyboard shortcuts and mouse
> gestures to speed up my browsing.
Yes - mouse gestures have great potential as well. Should have mentioned that.
>>> The screenshot [1] has only one tab, but I have between 10 and 20 per
>>> window, with three windows in total (on three different desktops).
>>> Space for the site in the centre happens to be exactly 1280 pixels. If
>>> I *really* need vertical space, I just turn my screen 90 degrees ;)
>>>
>>> With proper use of media queries the lack of vertical space (or
>>> horizontal space growing much more rapidly) disabling horizontal
>>> toolbars shouldn't be needed any more. From my perspective, Opera
>>> doesn't need to change, the sites need to.
>>> [1] http://download.remcol.ath.cx/screenshot-opera.png
>>
>> You are using a small font enabling much more info in your usable space
>> than I use. And that many older people prefer.
>> What is your monitor size and resolution you are using? (Nice screen
>> shot by the way - it came out well.)
>> I don't know of any monitor with a height of 1280. Usually 1200 for a
>> 16:10 24" LCD (1920 x 1200) or 1600 for a 2560 x 1600 16:10 30" LCD.
>
> The 1280 is the width of the centre part, not the height. I thought the
> context made that clear. I'm on a 24" at 1920x1080 (Samsung SyncMaster
> 2494HM). The current setup gives me 975 pixels vertical space, which I
> find plenty. As for the font, it's the standard (12px?) size. I'm still
> young, so it works very well for me.
Yes, my point exactly. When your vision is sterling, one can use much smaller fonts. Most older people prefer a much larger font necessitating a much more cautious use of space. You're lucky. If you want to really preserve that vision, check out Plus Lens Therapy online and grab some reading glasses for your computer. It dramatically reduces eyestrain. The type of eyestrain that destroys your vision over a several year period. Ideally that computer screen should be at the infinity focus point of your vision. When your eyes are focused on a distant object they are relaxed. They have to use muscles to focus closer than that. That's why kids that spend so much time with close work often need glasses for distance after a few years. The absolute worst thing you can ever do if your myopic (need glasses for distance) is to wear your glasses when on the computer. Glasses absolutely destroy your distant vision - which is why almost everybody wearing them sees their eyes
deteriorate over the years needing stronger and stronger prescriptions.
> Changing the font size changes everything, since you can have less info on
> the screen. If you really need vertical space that badly, get yourself a
> widescreen monitor that you can turn 90 degrees. You'll pay a bit more but
> it gets you almost twice the height you have normally. Width is limited
> though, so in the end it's very personal what works best for you.
True - but then you need 2 monitors because so often the layout is really for a widescreen layout. Its interesting - Google made a video regarding working at their firm and as the camera panned through many of their offices and cubicles I noted how many used 2 portrait oriented monitors side by side. Here's an interesting article about aspect ratio and work you'll appreciate :)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10150269-1.html
Venn
> if you go to pretty much any site,
> the content that matters the most is already at the top.
Usually there's banner crap at the top, even when one blocks
ads, but one can page past that. And most sites have
sidebars of minimal use, so they can be zoomed off-screen.
I zoom pretty much every site to get just the good stuff on
screen, and useless stuff off it.
> If you really need vertical space that badly, get yourself a
> widescreen monitor that you can turn 90 degrees.
I paid an extra $100 to get a rotating 24-inch 1920x1200
monitor, which I primarily use in portrait mode. Worth it.
Whoosh ::
> since a 22" monitor on the used market frequently sells
> for under $100 and it has a 1680 width, I'd say web designers
> better wake up and realize they are living in the past if they
> don't design for wider displays.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
That says that, as of Jan-2009, a third of users were still
on 1024x768 screens, so you can't really makes things too
difficult for them. It's likely why 1280 seems the default
design width for sites that specify one.
I recently bought a 17-inch notebook with 1600x900 screen,
and I've had to adapt to it when I don't have it hooked up
to my desktop monitor. So I use more of a full-screen
approach then. The same site as I'd view it on monitor and
notebook:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6583/op1600x900.png
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/7628/op1200x1920.png
I routinely zoom to around 200%, often 300+%, and I'm picky
enough that I have zoom keys at 1/5/10/100 percent steps.
Plus, I'll banish styles in an instant if they make reading
unpleasant.
Remco Lanting
> http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6583/op1600x900.png
>
> http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/7628/op1200x1920.png
>
> I routinely zoom to around 200%, often 300+%, and I'm picky
> enough that I have zoom keys at 1/5/10/100 percent steps.
> Plus, I'll banish styles in an instant if they make reading
> unpleasant.
Perhaps http://readable-app.appspot.com/ is a good idea for you. I just
found it hidden in my bookmarks after remembering I had something like it.
Whoosh
>> the content that matters the most is already at the top.
>
> Usually there's banner crap at the top, even when one blocks
> ads, but one can page past that. And most sites have
> sidebars of minimal use, so they can be zoomed off-screen.
> I zoom pretty much every site to get just the good stuff on
> screen, and useless stuff off it.
Lol...and I thought I was the only one that used the zoom function to push ads off to the side....:)
>> If you really need vertical space that badly, get yourself a
>> widescreen monitor that you can turn 90 degrees.
>
> I paid an extra $100 to get a rotating 24-inch 1920x1200
> monitor, which I primarily use in portrait mode. Worth it.
Actually one can get a very cheap monitor arm that rotates and have the added benefit of more positioning freedom. On the used market they go very cheap as they are hard to sell.
> Whoosh ::
>> since a 22" monitor on the used market frequently sells
>> for under $100 and it has a 1680 width, I'd say web designers
>> better wake up and realize they are living in the past if they
>> don't design for wider displays.
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
>
> That says that, as of Jan-2009, a third of users were still
> on 1024x768 screens, so you can't really makes things too
> difficult for them. It's likely why 1280 seems the default
> design width for sites that specify one.
My point I was trying to make, and I didn't do a very good job at it was that a good webdesign shows as much on the first page as possible then autofits the page to the monitor's resolution. I'm certainly no webdesigner so I'm not knowledgeable on how that's done but many sites show it can be done. Certainly something to aim for. Then everybody is content.
> I recently bought a 17-inch notebook with 1600x900 screen,
> and I've had to adapt to it when I don't have it hooked up
> to my desktop monitor. So I use more of a full-screen
> approach then. The same site as I'd view it on monitor and
> notebook:
>
> http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6583/op1600x900.png
>
> http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/7628/op1200x1920.png
>
> I routinely zoom to around 200%, often 300+%, and I'm picky
> enough that I have zoom keys at 1/5/10/100 percent steps.
> Plus, I'll banish styles in an instant if they make reading
> unpleasant.
That is some good advice! I've often thought I should decide on the percent steps so I can get to the desired zoom level quicker. It makes such a difference when the layout is adjusted well for the user. Easier to read plus you're seeing as much as possible.
Naruki Bigglesworth
> My point I was trying to make, and I didn't do a very good job at it was that a good webdesign shows as much on the first page as possible then autofits the page to the monitor's resolution. I'm certainly no webdesigner so I'm not knowledgeable on how that's done but many sites show it can be done. Certainly something to aim for. Then everybody is content.
It's done with CSS, but in my experience the majority of sites (subjectively about 95%) assume
a fixed width of either 1024 or at least something not quite 1260.
I assume they do this primarily because they think it will fit on more screens that way, plus
it will make printing the page more predictable.
But I also think they do it in many cases because the site they copied did it that way.
Swifty
> It's done with CSS, but in my experience the majority of sites (subjectively about 95%) assume
> a fixed width of either 1024 or at least something not quite 1260.
No wonder most pages look complete rubbish on my phone, then.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Naruki Bigglesworth
> Naruki Bigglesworth wrote:
>> It's done with CSS, but in my experience the majority of sites (subjectively about 95%) assume
>> a fixed width of either 1024 or at least something not quite 1260.
>
> No wonder most pages look complete rubbish on my phone, then.
Yeah, true. But a lot (no idea how many) of sites are trying to make mobile friendly pages now,
so long as they have some way of detecting what browser you are using.
Whoosh
Its just incredible that people would think about changing anything because some backward person prints a webpage. Maybe one out of 100,000 views results in the page being printed? Probably more like 1 in 10 million. I mean, why would anyone print most anything these days? Its just ludicrous how people just can't get out of the 20th century. The other day I went to my doctor and he was copying data from one page to another - long hand. He could have done it with far better legibility and in 1% of the time by doing the ol' Alt_C and Alt_V combo to instantly move the data. Some people just won't wake up.