[Freddy]

I made the forum a fixed width just now as it helps me when adding new features to keep to a size that will work on lower resolutions.  I also find with wide screen that text gets stretched out and difficult to read over long distances on the screen.

This simplifies things for me no end. 

All I was wondering is if this site is displaying okay for people on 1024.  I think it should be.

[DaveMorton]

@1024x768, the forums look fine. However, @800x600 (I'm sure someone out there still uses that size, but I'm also sure they don't visit here. ) it looks like... Like... Well, let's just say "less than optimal", and let it go at that. Personally, I use 1280x1024 on both of my monitors. But I try to code down to 1024 width for my web pages that I make.

[Duskrider]

I use 1024.   Looks good to me.   

[Freddy]

Thanks guys.  I don't support anything lower than 1024, I'm afraid they will have to use the scroll bars.  Most people are above this though.

[Art]

I also find with wide screen that text gets stretched out and difficult to read over long distances on the screen.

I should say so...after all from England to the USA is stretching things a bit!

Yes Freddy...it looks quite nice at 1024 and 1280.

[Data]

I fully understand why you have changed it Freddy, but at 1920 there is now sooo much wasted space, personally I preferred it how it was. My screen dosnt go as low as 1024 

Not a complaint, just an observation.

[DaveMorton]

Even @1280 screen width, there's significant unused space, but it's tolerable. I don't think it would be as tolerable, however, if I viewed it @1920 or more.

Most (if not all, these days) modern browsers use a "min-width" attribute in CSS. Is it possible to use something like that in your stylesheet?

[Freddy]

I should say so...after all from England to the USA is stretching things a bit!
Yes Freddy...it looks quite nice at 1024 and 1280.

Haha, you got me, as I was typing it I wondered if I had chosen my words wisely

Datahopa & GCC. Try not to see it as wasted space but rather padding  No seriously, don't you find it difficult reading from one side of a wide screen to another ?  I can look into ways of supplying both formats, ie wide and fixed width I guess.  The user would pick which one they want and I would set it in a cookie or something.  I'm less worried by wasted space than I am by viewing comfort though.

I have a 1920 width screen, but I rarely use a browser in full screen.  Keeping it like that, I can access my desktop easily too.  I don't really see it as wasted space...it's just space that doesn't get used (and is not available across all resolutions).  I just tried the site at full screen and it seems fine to me, it doesn't bug me at all - I guess it's all down to personal preference.

I'll see what I can come up with

[Data]

Don’t work too hard just for me Freddy, I can live with the wasted space, sorry padding , having said that if you come up with a way for the user to choose that would be very cool, so cool I will ask you to show me how its done for my site

I actually like the way text can go very long across a wide screen, but like you say its personal preference.

[DaveMorton]

I'm with Datahopa here, in that I feel you needn't put out a lot of effort here. Consider it a "luxury item". Nice to have, but nothing we can't live without.

[GT40]

1024 is perfect for me. 

[DaveMorton]

I see a scrollbar, GT, but only a "tiny" one.

[Freddy]

Nice 

Well I think I can do something to give people the option.  I don't think it will be too hard, I did a similar thing with the Chatterbot Collection to give it two different themes.

It will be a few days though as I am a bit busy at the moment with other things.

[GT40]

Lots of thanks in advance Freddy, from all the crazy perfectionists of the forum. 

[DaveMorton]

That's better, GT, but you only needed to lop off 3 pixels, to remove the scrollbar.

Some tools, like my Screen Calipers, are VERY useful tools. (ok, not mine, in that I made them, which I didn't. Mine as in I paid for their use.)