http://www.atlasquest.com/images/gallery/13/11/131117lg.jpg

This is how it looks on 1368x786. On my other screen (1920x1280) it was still limited to the 480 or so wide and used 1/4th of the screen width.

Tracker and box pages look different to me too, but not real small, just a different layout.

The worst pages are the box pages and the tracker pages. The other pages look slightly different, but I used Crtl+ to scale them up.

Hmm.... The tracker pages were somewhat problematic for me while redesigning it. I won't bore you with the technical details, but I've gone ahead and changed the "Description" of the tracker so it can be nearly 50% wider than it was before and maybe that will help.

I had read that people find it more difficult to read text that's too wide so I played around with it an added a maximum width of 50em to it. Which seemed to work well on the pages I looked at and using my font size. I tried logging into your account with the small text, though, and was surprised at how small everything looked--and the severe lack of "stuff" on the right side of the page! So I've changed the maximum width to 70ems which helps a little.

I also tended to test my pages by looking at trackers with lots and lots of people and boxes where the finds chart needed to fit on a row by itself (and for narrow pages, still wasn't thin enough to fit). Looking at one of the postal trackers you were in with just one postal but lots of people, that finds chart by itself looks ridiculous, so I've also tweaked that and if there's space for it to fit next to the list of members and boxes, it'll go there rather than on a new line.

Which helps... but there's still a lot of empty space on the right side of many of your trackers.

As for the box listings.... there was a line break just before the series details information just because I thought it looked "neater," but I got rid of that which allowed the series details information, tracker memberships, tags, etc. to all flow across the page on the same line. Most people won't have text so small or browsers so wide that they'll see much of a difference, but it will fill in more of the right side of the page if there's space.

-- Ryan

This is how it looks on 1368x786.

Like I said before, I've made the maximum width of the description about 50% wider than it was before, so it help a little. I really don't want to push it much beyond that, however, because it does become increasingly more difficult to read the wider it gets. Imagine if the text spanned the whole page how difficult it would be to find the start of the next line after reaching the end of the previous one.

But the small text you use... it's kind of problematic from a design layout point of view. One of the things I did in this update was got rid of the "tiny" and "huge" text sizes completely because it's difficult to design a page that works well for all sorts of font sizes. I really wanted to get rid of the "small" and "large" versions as well, but a lot more people use those so I figured I'd phase them out gradually. They're on the chopping block! Since browsers of today all support the Ctrl+ and Ctrl- to adjust text size, there's not really any reason AQ should have to do it too. And Ctrl+ and Ctrl- work better since it'll scale images up and down properly which AQ doesn't do at all.

So anyhow, I slightly increased the size of the "small font." It might be enough that some people notice, but I tried to keep the change small enough that it's not too jarring. Then in another month or so, I'd make it a little bigger still. And a little bigger after that. Until all of the font sizes are the same and I can stop supporting what the browser already supports. =)

But as the font size increases.... it'll fill up more and more of that empty space on the right side of your page. ;o)

Unless, of course, you use Ctrl- to shrink it some more.

-- Ryan

Looks far better now! I can get used to it.
I had no idea my font was set to small, didn't even remember that was an option!

I had no idea my font was set to small, didn't even remember that was an option!

If you log out of AQ and surf the website a bit without AQ knowing who you are or your preferences, you'll see what the site looks like with "regular-sized" text that eventually everyone will have to start using. (Unless they change the size using Ctrl+ or Ctrl-.) It's the same size I use on all of my other websites as well. I added the text and print size options when browser support for text sizes was minimal, and have pretty much regretted it ever since!

-- Ryan

I've set it to normal and along with the small changes the site looks great.

I must have set it to small when I first changed computers and everything look like balloon letters. I then got used to AQ having a slightly smaller font and never really thought about it.

Thanks (as always!) for listening to feedback and trying to make the site look good for everyone, no matter what they use to view it.

Imagine if the text spanned the whole page how difficult it would be to find the start of the next line after reaching the end of the previous one.

To alleviate that problem, I use my mouse to highlight the next line as I read. Now I have a hard time reading things I can't highlight with my mouse. Some websites don't like it because they think I'm trying to copy their stuff, and some PDF's are images rather than converted text. For those things I narrow my browser window.

-TKV

Now I have a hard time reading things I can't highlight with my mouse. Some websites don't like it because they think I'm trying to copy their stuff

I always hated websites that did stuff like that, and frankly, I doubt it stops most people from copying their stuff. Anyone smart enough to copy stuff to use for their own purposes probably knows how to do a screen capture or view the source or something to get at the information. It might slow me down, but it won't stop me! It will annoy me, though, and make me hate their stupid website. =)

and some PDF's are images rather than converted text.

PDFs are great for printing documents, but they suck for reading material on the Internet. *shaking head*

-- Ryan

So anyhow, I slightly increased the size of the "small font." It might be enough that some people notice, but I tried to keep the change small enough that it's not too jarring.

I have to say, it IS pretty jarring. Definitely noticeable. I usually have many tabs open at once, and as I move around my various websites, when I come to AQ now it definitely looks like the default is bigger than other websites' defaults. I know, I can "Ctrl-Minus", and I'll get used to it. However, I don't particularly like the plan to slowly make it EVEN BIGGER. It's already feeling kinda Comic-Sans-ish, and after another increase or two, it'll seem like a coloring book.

when I come to AQ now it definitely looks like the default is bigger than other websites' defaults.

It might be, I suppose. I was just going for the standard "100%" text size as the default font size. (a.k.a. 12pt, 16px, 1em) Seemed kind of logical to use the browser's default font size as my default font size.

Just out of curiosity, did you make sure your browser was set to display AQ at "life size" or was it already zoomed in from previous Ctrl+? I was a little surprised to see that you're using the small-print font which even I have trouble reading and my vision is quite good. I'm wondering if maybe you Ctrl+ it to make the text larger and you're seeing an abnormally large "100%" font size when you look at it not logged in.

-- Ryan

However, I don't particularly like the plan to slowly make it EVEN BIGGER. It's already feeling kinda Comic-Sans-ish, and after another increase or two, it'll seem like a coloring book.

Totally agree. I see no reason to have made it larger and certainly no reason to make it even larger????

New page for each box looks kind of awkward especially if there is a photo or graphic on it.

I also find the new arrangement for each box page to be awkward.

*heh* I added a new line for the Series Details section because I thought it looked "neater," but people didn't like that either! I gotta admit, though, I'm still kind of partial to putting the series details under other details.

Doesn't look good at all, especially if there is a photo or graphic on the page.

I considered getting rid of the photos completely from that page because it's entirely unnecessary there and I didn't much care for how they looked in the grand scheme of things, but I figured I'd get a lot of flak for taking it out. People like their photos. *shrug*

I'm not sure if this will help your aesthetics or not, but I'm currently updating AQ to use larger versions of the photos. It used to be AQ shrunk photos down to a maximum of 300x300 pixels, but I'm increasing it to 400x400 pixels (about 78% larger in area!). It should help make the photos look more clear and fills in some of the extra white space around the right side of the page. I can't do much about older photos where the original large-sized version of the photo was deleted due to space constraints, but newly-uploaded photos and already-existing photos where I still have the original image will use the new sizes.

-- Ryan

I'm prolly the lightest and most clueless AQ user reading this thread, so I prolly shouldn't post, but I do have one active clue listed, and I checked it out, and didn't see anything too weird with the aesthetics of the listing.

But,

I added a new line for the Series Details section because I thought it looked "neater," but people didn't like that either! I gotta admit, though, I'm still kind of partial to putting the series details under other details.

I will say that this is a bit weird, tho. Reading the "Series Detail" section (at least on my box), seems to imply River Sol created it. Its a bit confusing (at least to me), tho perhaps there is an AQ reason for this that I am not aware of. (When I created the listing, I listed River Sol as the carver, so maybe this is a bug at worst, or confusing (at least to newbies), I dunno).

http://www.atlasquest.com/showinfo.html?boxId=246213

FWIW

Reading the "Series Detail" section (at least on my box), seems to imply River Sol created it.

You've got a good point there. *nodding* I was trying to eliminate the column with the carver's name if it was already the same as the owner since the vast majority of boxes are carved by the owner. I figured it's a safe assumption for most people to assume the owner is also the carver unless otherwise noted.

But that "otherwise noted" part.... maybe not have worked out as well as I'd have liked. I've gone ahead and updated the code to always include a carver (as well as the title that goes with it) to make it crystal clear who is the carver and that they ARE just a carver!

-- Ryan

Personally, I liked the old setup. More like this:
http://www.atlasquest.com/images/gallery/13/11/131126lg.jpg

It fills most of the space without being too wide, and is compact without being cluttered.

yeah.

on a side note, i am *so* not getting that box. . .

~tigs (<- - -head exploded)

Personally, I liked the old setup. More like this:
http://www.atlasquest.com/images/gallery/13/11/131126lg.jpg

I'm a little confused.... that links to a photo of the new layout, not the old one. Does that mean that you do like the new format?

-- Ryan

If it helps, I can't stand the new layout. First of all, it doesn't tell me when I found the box! (Just in case I have to log it in on LBNA or just need to know the date. It was nice to have that all on the "title" page and not have to scroll down the finds page.)

Also, the new layout is all on the left side of the page. There's lots of blank space on the right side of my screen. Very annoying, since the old layout used to nicely fit along the entire page.

Just my two cents.

BB

First of all, it doesn't tell me when I found the box!

If there's a green check on it, it means you've recorded the find, and if you hover your mouse cursor over it, it'll also include the date that you found the box.

Also, the new layout is all on the left side of the page. There's lots of blank space on the right side of my screen.

There's probably not much I can do about that. My monitor is currently set to display 1920 pixels wide--which in my book is pretty wide--and there's not a lot of blank space on the right side of my page. http://www.atlasquest.com/images/gallery/13/11/131131lg.jpg

However, when I shrink the page to 1,350 pixels wide, I actually get a lot more whitespace on the right side of the page because the series details section is now too long to fit on the same line as everything else and therefore drops down to the next line. http://www.atlasquest.com/images/gallery/13/11/131132lg.jpg

The point, though--AQ will attempt to use all of that space on the right side of the page, but if there's not enough room for the next element of the page, it's going to drop down to the next line. Given the wide variety of monitors and settings, though, there's nothing I can do that will guarantee all of the space across the page will get filled. But AQ will attempt to fill it in when it can.

If there's a specific example you have in mind, I can take a look at a screenshot of how it looks to you, but I doubt there's much I can do to "fix" it since each element is lined up one right after the other. At least until the box comments are reached which gets a new line no matter what. (But the comments will now span across the entire width of the page as well which they didn't used to do!)

There's actually a lot less vertical scrolling for me with new layout.

-- Ryan

That's a photoshop of the new layout to look more like the old one.
What I'm seeing now is every 'box' one above the other using only 1/2 of my screen, or 3 columns across - depending on the size of the boxes. No two pages look the same.

My 1920 didn't look anything like that, but I'm not near that computer right now, and I know you've changed it slightly.
Your screenshot at 1350 looks far nicer then what I was seeing at 1280.

Have you thought about a border around the box plant/location info? That seems to be the only section without one. And the map icon seems a bit out of place down there.

That's a photoshop of the new layout to look more like the old one.

Ah, yes, I see it now. But it's easy to pick a specific box viewed at a specific screen width and move elements like a Tetris game to maximize the amount of "fill-in." It's a lot harder programmatically when each box has different elements available, the sizes of the elements vary from box to box, and don't know what the user's screen width will be ahead of time.

I tried fitting them together all sorts of ways but couldn't find anything that worked under all scenarios, so I just kept it simple. Line up the elements in a row and when the rows runs out, carriage return and start a new row.

Your photoshopped image doesn't have a photo on it. Where would that fit in for a box that had it? What if it's part of a tracker--where does the element for which trackers the box has been in go? What about when there are more or less buttons so they don't make a neat 3x2 grid?

There are just so many variables involved..... Even whether someone is logged in or not changes the sizes and shapes of the elements. Tags don't apply to people without accounts on AQ, and premium members have 8 tags instead of 4.

It requires a flexible layout, but a flexible layout isn't necessarily the prettiest layout either. There's not really much I can do that will make it look perfect under all conditions.

What I'm seeing now is every 'box' one above the other using only 1/2 of my screen, or 3 columns across

You mean the buttons? The buttons are supposed to span the entire width of the page before dropping down into a new line. Make sure you've done a page refresh if that's not what's happening.

No two pages look the same.

Indeed. =) If only they did.... layouts would be a lot easier!

-- Ryan

Have you thought about a border around the box plant/location info?

Not really, but when I just tried it on my development machine, it looks way wrong. If you want to play around with the idea, you can create a custom theme on AQ and add styles to .basicDetails (that's the class name for that whole element).

And the map icon seems a bit out of place down there.

I'd agree with that. It looks like it belongs with the other buttons, but logically it seemed like it made more sense to put it next to the location information. (For premium members who add a custom location, there's a second map button for that as well.)

I'm gone ahead and tweaked it so the word "Map" will display next to the icon rather than under it. I like it. =) (You'll have to refresh the page to see that change, though.)

-- Ryan

With text size set to normal then "Ctrl-minus" twice, stuff is starting to line up nicely.

On some pages the box info (plant date, location) gets squashed with no white space between it and the series info 'box'. A small white border might help.

My biggest complaint is everything is always moving, where before stuff stayed in almost the same spot. EVERY box page I look at, I need to search the screen for the info I'm looking for. On this box page it's in the lower left, the next it's high on the right...

I could 'get used' to the changed layout, but every new page I look at it's another change. When this update first happened, it took me over a minute to find the Clue button!

My biggest complaint is everything is always moving, where before stuff stayed in almost the same spot. EVERY box page I look at, I need to search the screen for the info I'm looking for.

That's a good point.... another point in favor of just forcing a new line with the series details section. That section really moves around depending on the width of the page (as well as everything that comes after it). Intuitively, I liked it better starting on a fresh line, but I stopped doing that when people were bothered by the whitespace it created on the right side of the page.

When this update first happened, it took me over a minute to find the Clue button!

That's understandable.... I took the link out from the "basic details" section which is probably where most people looked for it because that's where it used to be. The button to get to the clue was always there, but blended in with all of the other buttons off on the far-right side of the page where it generally languished. I figured bringing the buttons back into "focus" immediately under the title, it'll be easier for people to find and use, and I made sure it was the first button in the list since it'll likely be used the most.

But begin so close to the beginning of the page, that button isn't going to move around from page to page. It's pretty much the same location no matter what box you look at. (The further down a page an element is located, the more the element might move from box to box.)

But you were probably so used to looking for a clue link, you probably didn't even look at the buttons while looking for the clue. That's one of those kind of things that I think people will get used to, though. It's previously formed habits that make it easy to miss the clue button. A person new to AQ likely would have found it in seconds.

On some pages the box info (plant date, location) gets squashed with no white space between it and the series info 'box'. A small border might look nice.

Hmm.... that sounds more like a margin problem than a border problem. But I can't actually find a page that does that for me. *thinking*

-- Ryan

Like I said, with a "Ctrl-minus" the sections are staying in place better.

I try to offer suggestions and not just complain about stuff, but I have no idea how this site is built.

Intuitively, I liked it better starting on a fresh line, but I stopped doing that when people were bothered by the whitespace it created on the right side of the page.

When the change first happened, I was seeing everything with a line break. The photo under the basic details, the series info under that, the tags under that. I had to force refresh my CSS (?). I'm not the only person to see that and that's when the complaints about too much white space started.

That's a good point.... another point in favor of just forcing a new line with the series details section.

I was thinking maybe moving the Tags box above the Series Details. Then it could fill in the white space to the right of the basic details when there isn't a photo and maybe still fit there if there is one. Or sit above the Series Details.
That way it's something that doesn't get used often moving around and the forced line break keeps the important stuff still.

Either way, I'll sit back and use the site for a few more days before complaining about anything else.

I try to offer suggestions and not just complain about stuff

And I appreciate that. =) I can work with suggestions. General complaints don't leave me much to work with.

When the change first happened, I was seeing everything with a line break. The photo under the basic details, the series info under that, the tags under that. I had to force refresh my CSS (?).

Hmm.... That's a good point. Maybe I was trying to fix complaints from people who hadn't seen the correct version of the changes. I'm starting to lean towards adding the break back in, though. I liked it better overall with the break anyhow (which is why I added it originally!), but everyone seemed really upset about all the whitespace.

I was thinking maybe moving the Tags box above the Series Details. Then it could fill in the white space to the right of the basic details when there isn't a photo and maybe still fit there if there is one. Or sit above the Series Details.

I tried doing that, but that runs into its own issues. It looks great on a desktop, but it's less great on a narrower device like a smartphone or iPad. The tags push the series details section right off the bottom page! And I felt that the series details was more important than settings tags. (Tags do show up in the title with the rest of the icons, so the tag section really is only useful for setting and unsetting tags--not looking up which ones are set.)

And if there's an image along with the tags, even on desktops, the tag section might just be enough to push the photo to the next line which pushes the series details information even further down the page.

So for the most part, I figured it was best just to sort elements in how important I think they were so regardless of how the page gets laid out, the most important stuff is closest to the top of the page. The one real exception with boxes are the images which really add nothing but eye candy and the formatting would probably work out better without it completely. (For really narrow screen widths, an image will not be displayed at all.) But people like their images.... *shrug*

Although I can't claim the current layout is the best possible one out there--undoubtedly there are smart designers out there who could have done a better job of it than I have--I have probably tried hundreds of different combinations trying to figure out what works best for as many listings as possible on as many different types of devices as possible. It might not be perfect, but.... *shrug* It's the best I could come up with. These pages are not easy to design for because of so many moving variables involved.

-- Ryan

Unfortunately, I can't take a screen shot on this computer. I will have to find another computer. Though, somehow between last night and this morning while I slept, my text size reverted back to small text (I put it on normal text last night to see the difference). That doesn't bother me though since I have always liked the smaller text.

I guess it's my OCD that things aren't lined up that bother me. (Especially on the very bottom where the comments for the boxes are). I find that I have a hard time reading them now. I understand to not want to scroll, but I find at least on the "big screen" (aka computer), that it's too busy for my eyes to fixate on. Just my two cents.

Thanks for letting me know though that I can hover over the check mark (I must not have gotten my cursor close enough to see that).

I know that RIClimber likes the horizontal lines (did I see him post that? I think so, but I dunno), but I'm finding that they are distracting. Again, just my two cents.

BB