New EEVblog Website Install - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 08:35:46 am
content: The new EEVblog website template is being installed sometime over the next day.If the site goes down or goes silly you'll know why.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 08:44:07 am
content: And if it goes horribly wrong, we know who to blame!http://www.inerds.com.au/

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 11:54:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2015, 08:44:07 amWell, it says they are "Sydney's best website designers". I don't know ... they couldn't even get the whole picture of that lady to fit on the front page - they cut off the picture right at her nose!

author: LordNobady
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 01:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on August 06, 2015, 11:54:31 amnot even talking about the fact that I find it a very confusing interface. I like to see where my menu buttons are.

author: Bob F.
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 03:52:36 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on August 06, 2015, 11:54:31 amThat's Art, that is... It is designed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor.As for the new site install:

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 06:10:11 am
content: Is anybody else now having difficulty viewing the forum on a smart TV, unfortunately I cant take a snapshot to show what I am seeing or rather not seeing, previously I would view the forum at 150% and it fitted nicely and text was readable but with the new wider columns it doesn't fit and I need to pan right on every page to get the entire contents of the viewed page and we can only read text up to the start of the quote icon, anything to the right of that icon requires dragging the screen to the left, at 125% it fits but the text is way to small to read and no hope at all at 100% but this was always the case even prior to the upgrade, I have no doubt that it will be fine when viewed on the PC but we mostly look at it on the TV which has no means of adjustment even via the thinned out chrome settings. On the main page we now miss out on the time, date and last poster corresponding to that particular topic and the same with the front page list of recent posts, the far right column is concealed.I might have to take a photo to show how much we are not seeing and it isn't much just enough to be a serious annoyance, so if someone could just take a few millimeters off each column we would be very appreciative, I have an angle grinder if necessary.Many ThanksMuttleySent from my LG TV with the on screen keyboard, a mouse and my right index finger.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 06:24:13 am
content: I just noticed that the forum now sits in the middle 50% of my screen instead of stretching to fill the whole thing, is there any way to change this?

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 06:51:22 am
content: Probably nothing some greasemonkey scripting can't sort out.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 06:59:46 am
content: Don't like 50% thing either. What's the point of buying big monitors if we only use 50%?Unless this gets fixed, GreaseMonkey will have to do some more work, indeed.Stylish style to bring things back:---@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);@-moz-document url-prefix(https://www.eevblog.com/forum);div#wrapper{max-width: 100%;}---

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:30:52 am
content: The forum was changed from a 95% width setting to a fixed 1045pxThis was done to match the new wordpress website template width.I agree that is look kinda wierd for a forum, I do all my viewing a 1920wide monitor.Opinions please...

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:35:00 am
content: Is there a significant amount of people visiting for the main site? I don't remember when was the last time I was there. It feels like majority of people are here for the forum. Why not make it easier on them?

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:37:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 07:30:52 am

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:39:03 am
content: I like the old format better.Alexander.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:44:49 am
content: I've just been scrolling around the forum reading a few posts and had enough, it really is a challenge when viewed on this smart TV.If it stays like this then I will have little option left other than to find a forum that fits or a TV/ Screen that is acceptable.........Hello Martin it's Muttley.Yassas Kiriakos Afto Muttley.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:55:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 07:30:52 am21st century net users wants their inline, high resolution, user submitted/linked photos back (without having to tinker with GreaseMonkey).1045px doesn't allow room for the LH sidebar *and* wide photos in forum posts.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 08:00:36 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 07:30:52 amImagine what it's like on a 2560px-wide monitor...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 08:14:13 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on August 07, 2015, 08:00:36 amI can.No one seems to complain about fixed width wordpress blog sites though, but that's kinda par for the course. Forums are different beasts.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 09:33:08 am
content: Could some kind soul upload a working GreaseMonkey script, including all the trimmings, @include's and whatnot, please? A script, which visibly changes exactly one detail on the EEVBlog site through CSS manipulation, to be precise.

author: RobertHolcombe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 09:41:43 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on August 07, 2015, 08:00:36 am

author: Deathwish
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 09:49:20 am
content: Looks ok and works on my laptops and TV in the front room, if it aint broke why fix it, so long as it doesn't end up loading a whole lot of glitzy ritzy add ons or flash stuff etc I dont need so I wait an hour to read the posts its all good with me.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:00:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 07:30:52 amIn a word: arrogant.Iknow how I want/need to see things onmydisplay; the web designercannot, by definition. The way I want/need things is, of course, different to other people's desires/needs.I'm not sufficiently arrogant to assume that my way is right for everybody.Why are your web designers so arrogant? What makes them so sure they are right I am wrong?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:05:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 08:14:13 amSo what? Two wrongs don't make a right!If you want to see a spectacularly unusable fixed-width site, try to choose between the resistors onhttp://uk.rs-online.com/web/c/passive-components/fixed-resistors/surface-mount-fixed-resistors/?searchTerm=0603+50+ohm+resistor

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:28:37 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on August 07, 2015, 10:19:11 amYou really need/want a fluid layout, which automatically adapts to the client screen resolution/width. This can be done through CSS with no server interaction, though writing a suitable style sheet for an existing forum may not be that easy.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:32:15 am
content: Quote from: Tac Eht Xilef on August 07, 2015, 08:00:36 amNo need to imagine for me as I see this everyday with my own eyes

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:59:34 am
content: At 1045px it doesn't even suit anyone running legacy computers or tablets with 1024px wide screens.IMHO its the worst of all possible choices for a forum. Why not simply put it back to the 95% width setting, as I don't remember anyone complaining recently about the forum layout?Also a separate lean as possible forum theme for mobile devices with minimal crud at the top and bottom of each page would be useful.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:33:57 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 07, 2015, 10:05:05 amI agree. I don't like it either, I think it's unworkable, I'll get them to change it back.I do think that Wordpress themes (including mine) work well on a fixed width. Forums don't though.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:36:22 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 11:33:57 amThank you!

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:50:34 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on August 07, 2015, 11:36:22 amThank You Very Much......

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 12:04:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 11:33:57 am

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 12:12:37 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on August 06, 2015, 11:54:31 amOh my god, their website is awful! It's like aparodyof modern, flashy, over-designed websites. It is to 2015 whatthis websiteis to the 90s...I have to commend them for one thing - this JavaScript crapfest actually works properly in a non-JavaScript browser. Impressive! Though the noscript text is condescending:Quote

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 02:33:14 pm
content: I'm wondering why web-developers even try to impose a specific, fixed layout onto a website. After all, one of the main points of HTML is that the users browser displays the page in a usable fashion. HTML is not a page layout format. All it should ever do is give hints about where to place what content. Never, ever, should it use fixed pixel-widths and the like. If people want a pixel-exact layout for their content, they should do a proper layout and get that printed on paper.Oh boy, how i hate all these sites that think a page must have the content only in a narrow strip at the center, leaving huge blank spaces left & right.Greetings,Chris

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 03:00:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 11:33:57 amThank you.If only all companies listened like that to their customers, and were prepared to reverse mistakes as quickly.(I couldn't possibly be thinking of Microsoft and RS and ..., oh no)

author: Len
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 03:46:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 08:14:13 amI do, but since I'm just muttering at the screen no-one pays any attention.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 04:05:25 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on August 07, 2015, 02:33:14 pmLaziness. It is easer for them.

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 04:39:15 pm
content: Nobody likes change.Do whatever you like.But...QuoteSound familiar?The wholefuckingpointof HTML is that it looks fine however you look at it.The structure of a forum pageespeciallylends itself to client side formatting.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 04:55:56 pm
content: All of a sudden the forum is no longer being stretched across the screen and appears squashed, making it more difficult to read than before.I'm using Firefox 39 on Windows 7 and have a 1920x1080 monitor.

author: fmaimon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:27:21 pm
content: Same here. Tested with Firefox 39 and Chrome 44

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:31:23 pm
content: If this is a deliberate change, it looks bad. Could be an error with the skin, after an update perhaps? Check if the main content has a "width" property assigned.

author: electr_peter
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 07:42:12 pm
content: I have also noticed that page is a bit narrower. Blue side panels are too big.

author: drws
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 08:22:39 pm
content: Have you seen :https://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/new-eevblog-website-install/msg725965/#msg725965?

author: Vgkid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 10:56:03 pm
content: Works fine for me on IE10/ Firefox-39.03 . Though I'm running windows Vista

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: Vgkid on August 07, 2015, 10:56:03 pmAre you running on a non-HD screen perchance? The "problem" is that the content of the page is capped to 1045px rather than 95% of page width; if your windows are approx 1000px wide, then of course it's going to look about the same to you.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:10:30 pm
content: Forum is irritatingly small for me too. Hopefully Dave doesn't let these god-awful web "designers" he found come play in the forum as well as wrecking his front page...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:14:34 pm
content: Quote from: drws on August 07, 2015, 08:22:39 pmNope, hence this thread.This is rubbish. I hope he changes it back soon.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:36:10 pm
content: Eh?Oh, right, some people actually read the web with a maximized browser...In wide screen (or worse), no less.Studies have shown, the most pleasing and easy to read paragraphs are about 60 characters across. Which is about where 800x600 left off, given typical dot pitch and font scalings.Between sidebars, margins and images, I personally don't find it practical to browse below 1000 width, but, I use little more, to achieve a manageable experience.Treat yourself, and try viewing webpages in a narrower browser. You'll get more on screen (you can just about tile two windows side-by-side on a 1080p monitor), and have an easier time reading it.4:3 monitors are better for this, because you get more vertical reading room (at 1600x1200, you can comfortably fit a single column sheet at full screen). 1080p just isn't quite enough to do that."Aha!", you might say, and turn the monitor sideways -- most LCDs are intended to operate that way as well; but alas, the width is then far too narrow, even for A4 size documents (which are quite narrow to begin with), plus if it's not a high quality monitor, the color banding along the now-horizontal axis is severely exaggerated, so that it is even more critical to be seated exactly in the center of your screen for best viewing.(That said, portrait screens can be quite useful for certain limited applications. Heavy text editing, programming and such, is one such example.)(For all three of these reasons -- the bad landscape ratio, the bad portrait ratio, and the bad color rendering and contrast -- I despise HD monitors. Yes, others can be had, but not for as cheap. To this day, one of the best displays remains a Trinitron CRT, in the 21" and 2048 x 1536 x 85Hz range, which still sell for $200 easy.)So, yes -- there is indeed some intended method to viewing media. It's not  snobbery, it's ergonomic science!Returning to websites;Conversely, there are viewers which might not even be able to see 1000 pixels wide. Back in the day, it used to be the users stuck with 640x480 and 800x600 screens, but nowadays, reduced resolutions have returned, and in vastly greater diversity -- and numbers! Indeed, Google reduces the PageRank of websites that don't support mobile[citation needed]. Sure, you can make a mobile version, but... if you can't afford a web development team to spin that... you better get it right the first time.Finally, there's always been, and always will be, the fundamental concern of accessibility. Some viewers will have really strange resolutions (multiple monitors, oddball screens, mainframes, TVs...??!), scale factors, user style sheets and so forth, which all interact with the original document. Obviously you can't much control what a user style sheet will do, but you can at least make it easier by allowing DIVs and TABLEs and such to resize automatically. Fixed width is, and always has been, the bane of web design: the lowest, simplest, dumbest solution to making something look right, for one narrow set of platforms and viewers.Please Dave, you can do better!Tim

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:39:01 pm
content: Hmm, change aversion aside, am I the only person who saw some plus points to the fixed-width layout? Sure you can label the web designers as lazy, but forum posters will be lazy no matter what you label them. And forum posters with 30" screens will post 1300-px wide diagrams in their posts, which are a pain for people on sensible sized monitors (or indeed, people like me who have large monitors but don't readforumsin afullscreenbrowser).Now to be fair, I think it probably should be changed back purely because the average poster here is probably reasonably thoughtful, and although the fixed width layout makes a lot of sense theoretically, exactly how you pick that 1045 (or whatever it was) px width is a tricky job, and the optimal value will drift over time. It should be a maximum size if anything, not just a fixed width that makes the page just overflow on windows smaller than 1045px.Also, isn't text sprawled along thousands of pixels is harder to read? I suppose when the screen is so wide that every paragraph becomes a single line... I just found hero999's images funny because if you force yourself to be objective for a moment, they both have the same amount of dead, empty whitespace:The only difference is whether the useless whitespace is inside our outside the page, and whether the paragraph looks like a nice paragraph, or one and a half tenuously stretched out lines? If you look at a typical EEVBlog thread, the messages are so short and the headers/title etc so tall that the vertical size of a post is almost independent of the width of the page... so why are we so bothered about page width again?But, bottom line is, user should get to choose, so it's good that this change is being reversed. I'm just baffled that people are posting screenshots like the one above as if to say, "look how bad the new layout looks", when it looks vastly superior (more pleasing to the eye, less eye movement required, and easier to read) to me?

author: Vgkid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:44:10 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on August 07, 2015, 11:06:27 pmCurrently on my personal laptop, so yes.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on August 07, 2015, 11:39:01 pmYes, there are a ton of studies on optimum reading width / charcters per line, and the smaller the width the better. That's why newspapers have columns, and why Wordpress blogs have fixed widths.QuoteCorrect. On a properly formatted page for readability the text would wrap around the image.QuoteYou'll always find pros and cons both ways.

author: fmaimon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:49:15 pm
content: If you want the old forum back, just use this greasemonkey script:Code:// ==UserScript==// @name EEVBlog width changer// @namespace eevblog.rlz// @include *.eevblog.com/forum/*// @version 1// @grant none// ==/UserScript==function addGlobalStyle(css) {var head, style;head = document.getElementsByTagName('head');if (!head) { return; }style = document.createElement('style');style.type = 'text/css';style.innerHTML = css;head.appendChild(style);}addGlobalStyle('div#wrapper { max-width: 100%; }')

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:49:38 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 07, 2015, 11:36:10 pmI don't care. I preferred it when the forum stretched across the full width of the window and find it much more difficult to read now.It's personal preference. Under the old forum setting, if you'd rather it be displayed as a narrow column of text then you could resize the browser window but now you have no choice.

author: fmaimon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 11:51:03 pm
content: For all of you who likes the old width better, use this greasemonkey scriptCode:// ==UserScript==// @name EEVBlog width changer// @namespace eevblog.rlz// @include *.eevblog.com/forum/*// @version 1// @grant none// ==/UserScript==function addGlobalStyle(css) {var head, style;head = document.getElementsByTagName('head');if (!head) { return; }style = document.createElement('style');style.type = 'text/css';style.innerHTML = css;head.appendChild(style);}addGlobalStyle('div#wrapper { max-width: 100%; }')

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 02:37:36 am
content: Quote from: fmaimon on August 07, 2015, 11:51:03 pmNice work.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 03:32:08 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on August 07, 2015, 11:39:01 pmTHIS!Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 11:45:37 pmCurious...It's rather easy to tell HTML/CSS to wrap an image, but I don't think I've ever seen a forum which supports it.Probably because it's just that little bit too fiddly (if you chain a bunch of pics on left and right alignments, and don't have enough text to fill in between, the whole flow is broken), and inline (paragraph style) images are "good enough", if sometimes wasteful of whitespace or left-right balance.So, I don't have any problem with inline images. Heck, it's the LaTeX default, too. If it's good enough for Knuth...Oh, and speaking of oversize images: it is nice that the forum normally avoids "blow-outs" by resizing images. Unfortunately, it does so the lazy way! A recent thread hadseveral pagesofenormous 3000-pixel-wide imagesstacked in it! What am I, made of bandwidth? Even users on high-end machines and fiber connections will have trouble downloading and rendering that page! You have to be an idiot to post that many camera-fresh photos! GAH!So, it would be nice if a script turned large (over 800 or 1000 pixels width) images into links or thumbnails.Of course, thumbnails would increase the processing and storage demands (which already includesexactly this functionfor in-forum attachments, which is fantastic!), so I'd be happy with links.(And, like I've said before, it would be nice to be able to post a YouTube link, just as a humble link and nothing more.)Tim

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 04:53:37 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 07, 2015, 11:10:30 pmThat's a tad rude. You have not seen the new website. Also, they are doing it for free because they are fans, cut them some slack.Show us your website.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 04:55:04 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on August 08, 2015, 03:32:08 amIf you can find a forum plugin that does that, or can modify the current one to do that, I'll be happy to use it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 04:57:33 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on August 08, 2015, 03:26:36 amWordpress came out 5 years before the first smartphones.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 04:58:44 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on August 07, 2015, 06:10:11 amWorks fine on my Sony Bravia, exactly the same look as my 1920x1080 desktop monitor.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 05:40:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 04:53:37 amHave youlookedattheir website? It's horrible! It's so inefficient it needs its own loading screen, doesn't showanycontent without JavaScript, and bounces around in surprising ways as you try to interact with it! Graphically it looks like garbage, the contrast is wonky between the text and the image and the funny rectangular highlighting makes be feel like I've accidentally selected text. It looks like Web 53.0 vomited on it. Free is too expensive, and I sure as hell hope you wouldn't actually pay for that. I'd pay people to get rid of that shit!"Show us your website" is a ridiculous challenge. It's not a question of who can bang out HTML better. Their website is practically unusable, that fact can't be cancelled by whether or not I can do better. I'm not advertising my services as a web developer.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 06:17:03 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 08, 2015, 05:40:20 amThat has absolutely nothing to do with my wordpress website. What makes you think my website would look like theirs?Have a look at their portfolio, seems they know what they are doing to me.http://www.inerds.com.au/portfolio/They are taking an industry standard popular wordpress template and modifying it for my requirements. Hard to screw that up. And I've already shown a capture of the mock website and everyone liked it. It's not hugely different to what I have now, just a hell of a lot tidier and more capable.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 06:20:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2015, 08:44:07 amdid those geniuses of "responsive design" did this?I would understand if page detected browser window width and scaled up to preserve aspect ratio and make it easier to read with bigger fonts, but displaying something the size of postcard on a huge modern monitor because webdesigner is not skilled enough? poor poorQuote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 08:14:13 amnot true,as always I was the first to complainwhen you "upgraded" theamphour, I also posted usercss back then to widen it from default its 1996 800px width.Code:.site-container {margin-left: 2% !important;max-width: 1200px !important;width: 80% !important;}.site-header {left: 1% !important;max-width: 1200px !important;width: 80% !important;}.powerpress_player embed {width: 100% !important;}this fixes the forum:Code:div#wrapper{max-width: 100% !important;width: 100% !important;}btw dont know whats up, but supplyframe iframe doesnt load for me at all, didnt even knew it was there but got curious why I have 160px margin at the top

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 06:23:58 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on August 08, 2015, 05:55:16 amYes, they did. Many (most?) of the stock themes did. Go look at captures on the Wayback Machine archive.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 10:57:52 am
content: Quote from: fmaimon on August 07, 2015, 11:51:03 pmThank you !!! It works, using Waterfox aka Firefox x64.Installed the greasemonkey for the 1st time, just to make the forum's width max out as my screen resolutions as I move around using different pcs, laptop.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 11:44:39 am
content: I don't know crap about web page stuff, its surprising to know that pc/os/internet/web have been evolved for decades, still now days the web technology can not reliably and capable of auto stretching the page's content to the viewer screen's max width ? Of course I'm talking vectorized items (scalable) like font, tab etc.cmiiw

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 12:39:10 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on August 08, 2015, 11:44:39 amOf course it can. It works well for things like this forum. Not so great for things like wordpress blog that post the same content over and over and want it to look a certain way. This is why a ton of Wordpress and other sites are fixed widths, it allows the content producer to force the user to see the content the way they want them to see it, because some presentations can be better in fixed widthThere are pros and cons to both approaches.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 02:09:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 12:39:10 pmI feel like this is historical as well. When blogging platforms were taking off there was a lot of talk of an online publishing revolution, it may have been a deliberate decisions to have posts default to a format familiar from print articles/editorials.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 02:25:55 pm
content: Quote from: krivx on August 08, 2015, 02:09:52 pmOf course they copied that, and they had good reason to. And those print articles and magazines have column based formatting because they are proven to be easier to read. All this stuff was researched long before the interwebs came along.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 05:33:57 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 02:25:55 pmThey are easier to read that way because of the overall stupidity of the news paper and magazine layout. And may be that's why they all go out of business now. And that's probably why they are complaining that browsers plugins showing just the content of the article formatted in a way user wants, kills their business (and this thing is now embedded into Firefox by default). Try to present content in a way people actually want to read it or go out of business.I personally rad with BIG fonts (I limit all my fonts to 16 minimum, and increase the size for things I read a lot). And why would not I? I have a big monitor, and my eye sight is not perfect. With this new formatting, no matter how much I increase the font size, I get the same width, but less information on the screen.And the is also a factor of "people used to it", even if things are not that efficient. If tomorrow there will be a study that shows that car pedals are more efficient if rearranged, it is not a reason to go and start changing them.But I really don't care, because Stylish script fixed that stupidity for me after 5 minutes of use.Just saying, so far you have a lot of people complaining on one side, and "studies" on the other.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 05:49:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 02:25:55 pmThe broadsheet format and multiple columns both date to ~18th century, surely the logistics of movable type frames may have had something to do with it? Thin columns only seem to excel when there are many alongside each other with headlines, I can skim several with a very natural sideways glance. It doesn't seem to have been successful for other print media, I can only think of Bibles as another example.edit: (Yes, this is a very silly argument. Yes, I am waiting to finish the workday.)

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 09:48:25 pm
content: Can't read it on iPad any more... no pinch to zoom functionality!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 11:00:23 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 08, 2015, 05:33:57 pmTo be very clear - I don't like the new fixed width forum format and have asked them to change it back!I am not in any way arguing fixed width is a good move for the forum. Relax.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2015, 11:04:40 pm
content: I might add to my earlier comment that I don't like having to 'reject' the offer to install tapas talk every time I change pages.Hugs

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 12:21:11 am
content: I'm also pleased that it's getting changed back, but I can't let this poor logic stand:Quote from: ataradov on August 08, 2015, 05:33:57 pmHow are you making your fonts bigger? If I hit Ctrl-+ in chrome, the width of the page scales up along with the fonts.Quote from: ataradov on August 08, 2015, 05:33:57 pmI don't think forum layout is life-threateningQuote from: ataradov on August 08, 2015, 05:33:57 pmChange aversion. People who are upset shout louder than people who are happy, even when in the minority. Change aversion. I could go on.Also, you think a whine-fest on a forum is a better source of truth than a pile of well-run, unbiased studies? Yikes!

author: nixfu
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 01:39:48 am
content: Whoa...forum is much less useful on my big iMac monitor now...its a skinny little bar now in the middle of my browser.Fixed sizes are BAD.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 07:44:11 am
content: Quote from: nixfu on August 09, 2015, 01:39:48 amJust so. Web mis-designers arrogance is a lose-lose compromise for me.... This forum now runs off the side of my notebook's screen, AAAAARGH. And is irritatingly small on my HD screen.If you want to see a ludicrous site, have a look at the RS site. There the information is actually wider than an HD screen, yet they constrain it to a narrow strip in the middle, thusensuringyouhaveto scroll more than desirable! For example, seehttp://uk.rs-online.com/web/c/semiconductors/amplifiers-comparators/operational-amplifiers/

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 08:06:29 am
content: Fixed sizes are BAD.And it's NOT 4K, only 2560x1600.Hope to see it back too

author: Whales
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 11:13:18 am
content: Fixed width? What fixed width?Where has everyone gone?EDIT: I think I prefer curveThat number can go back to '0 people are using this theme'Another study: harder to read fonts make you remember what you read better.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 03:15:50 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 07, 2015, 11:45:37 pmAnd then there are folks who like to read a web page in a larger font size, since most pages have a silly small size. Like, i have 170% set in my browser, on a 21" 1920x1080 screen. At 100% the font is just way too smal for me to read comfortably.Thanks to those idiots who think they know better how i have to see a web page! As cruel as it sounds, but i can only wish a lot of eye-sight problems for them, so that they finally can appreciate the core concept of HTML: Letting the user decide how to view a page...Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 03:19:04 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 04:53:37 amWhat? The person posting in the very forum affected by the change has not seen "the new website" affected by the change?Is this for real? And you talk about rude?The "designers" may be fans of this forum. But what they have done to the layout is just shit.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 03:21:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 06:17:03 amIs that the subsidiary of ibozos.com.whatever? Sure looks like it...Greetings,ChrisETA: Just because someone sticks an "i" before some word doesn't mean it's mor intelligent. In fact, all it means is that they have no imagination and chose to go with the "iSomething" scheme to make them look "hip".

author: apelly
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 05:38:46 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on August 11, 2015, 03:19:04 amDave was referring to eevblog.com, not eevblog.com/forum

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 05:55:05 am
content: And it just happens, I had to read a bunch of white papers (2 column layout) over the weekend. What a pain it is on a monitor. I have no doubt it works better on paper, but who reads on paper anymore? And on the monitor I had to constantly scroll back and forth the same page, loosing my place all the time.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 06:49:09 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on August 11, 2015, 03:19:04 amYes it's for real because the website has not been released yet. The website and the forum are entirely different things.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 10:26:38 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 11, 2015, 05:55:05 amOh my god no-one is proposing a two-column layout here. What an idiotic strawman argument.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 02:27:50 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 11, 2015, 06:49:09 amKind of a moot point, because the OP of that "sub"-thread explicitly refernced the forum:QuoteSo, no matter how separated the main site and the forum are, it was about the forum. Which, due to the idiotic width-change, became a stupid format to read. And whatever the change is, it's obviously been "released" to the forum. Otherwise you wouldn't have people complaining.That is, the person complained, explicitly, about the forum. Labeling complaints about that as rude is, well, rather rude in itself. Especially if you bring up non-excuses about some iBozos doing it for free. And heck, even demanding:QuoteThis is _your_ forum. You can do whatever you want with it. Just be aware that in todays age it is rather easy to alienate regular members. I mean, hey, you _do_ make your living out of the whole EEVBlog thing, don't you? If that is so, it would be in your best interrest to listen to your "customers"...Responding to something that the person didn't say, while adressing that person, is called "attacking a strawman". And the "do it for free" and "they are fans" tidbit is borderline "poisoning the well", just with a twist.Greetings,Chris

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2015, 02:57:03 pm
content: Dave - never announce you're going to update the site, just do it.You get far too many contradictory bits of advice otherwise.Just my advice...

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2015, 02:14:20 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on August 11, 2015, 10:26:38 amwow wow hold up, lets not be hasty about this, It might be worth a try! The way its setup now you could fit two, or TREE forum panels next to each other on one monitor screen, just think about thepossibilities, efficiency improvements and ergonomics!!1Quote from: lewis on August 11, 2015, 02:57:03 pmYes, after all look how great it worked forDIGG 4.0, and newSlashdotlayout, I mean what could go wrong?Quote from: lewis on August 11, 2015, 02:57:03 pmbut your advice contradicts realitypersonally the more oldschool the better, but then again I liked usenet best

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2015, 08:09:15 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 11:00:23 pmSo when will the miracle happen? I'd say they've had enough time to change it back by now?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 12:19:44 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on August 12, 2015, 08:09:15 pmI don't know. I guess they'll do it when they get a chance.I tried to do it myself in the forum settings, but it seems they have changed in some place else that appear to override this, because the forum setting is currently set for 95% width, not fixed.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 12:28:37 am
content: I too am pleased variable width will come back.however, it's not entirely unusable. i've got my zoom at 75% and it's passable for me.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 12:34:57 am
content: I have changed it back manually in the CSS file, but it looks the same to me on all browser, still fixed width.Perhaps some cache thing somewhere?Code:/* This division wraps the entire forum when a forum width is set. */div#wrapper{margin: 0 auto;/* min-width: 1045px; *//* max-width: 1045px; */}

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 12:42:31 am
content: oh wow. it's already fixed. yay!

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 02:24:04 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 08, 2015, 04:58:44 amI'm back in business...My LG 32LA6230 has the same resolution as your monitor but the browser is somewhat different and other than the zoom feature nothing is adjustable, thank you for changing it back, it does make a huge difference from where I'm sitting.Monitor screen resolution size is 1920 X 1080Browser screen resolution size is 1280 X 720Browser window size options:@ 75% = 1700 X 800 (way to small, need your Tagarno)@ 100% = 1276 X 600 (way to small, need a spotting scope)@ 125% = 1020 X 480 (still a bit small, need binoculars)@ 150% = 850 X 400 (just right, nice size, we see everything)@ 200% = 640 X 300 (a tad big but sometimes necessary)@ 250% = 510 X 240 (just outrageously big, no need for it)@ 300% = 425 X 200 (this is just plain scary)Just found out that the forum is now viewable at 200 and 250% on this TV and everything fits with larger fonts, I dont remember being able to use these magnifications before without panning or dragging the screen, this will be handy for reading quotes and some schematics so a big thumbs up.Also I have now noticed that some pictures respond differently, prior they would magnify with increased zoom in conjunction with the text, now they get smaller with increased zoom and the text grows but if I zoom out to say 100 or 75% then the pictures get larger but the text size shrinks to an unreadable level, this is not a complaint and I actually prefer this, others will no doubt have a different experience as I do when viewing from the PC rather than the TV.http://whatsmyscreenresolution.comMuttley

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 09:02:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 13, 2015, 12:34:57 amThank you for listening to your audience! It looks just fine now.

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 10:27:29 am
content: All good here, back to life.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 10:28:37 am
content: I'm so happy now!

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 10:37:04 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on August 08, 2015, 10:57:52 amGo away monkey .... uninstalled.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 11:17:30 pm
content: The website update is happening RIGHT NOW!9am Thursday 20th Sydney time.Will take a few hours, so things could get weird. Should not affect the forum, it's just a Wordpress thing.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 11:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 19, 2015, 11:17:30 pmDon't worry ... NOTHING CAN GO WRONG.

author: codeboy2k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 03:11:48 am
content: FYI: The temporary banner on the home page while under construction has no link to the forumI know how to get here, other's might not.

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 10:50:44 am
content: Just curious, you are aware that the website is just a rebadged stock theme, yeah?http://themeforest.net/item/sahifa-responsive-wordpress-news-magazine-blog-theme/2819356I'm a little surprised by the fact that the EEVblog text on the logo has not even had a modicum of attention, so that the background of the text either matches the banner, the banner matches the background text or both to be substantially different to each otherI've also heard rumours from those in the #eevblog IRC chat that there are some issues with menus not showing correctly in IE?

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 12:47:09 pm
content: Quote from: kizzap on August 20, 2015, 10:50:44 amits not the same, because unlike the garbage on eevblog.com original theme uses only one javascript file and actually WORKS on my browsereevblog.com garbage has 34 (thirty four) individual .js files, and doenst work at all ....

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 01:05:03 pm
content: Like the new look, but,Quote from: Rasz on August 20, 2015, 12:47:09 pmAgreed. I only enable scripts when absolutely necessary. EEVblog is one of the very few exceptions that I have white-listed the main site (although the original pagedidappear to function without script). Why the need for so many off-site scripts? May be this why the page takes soooooo long to load. I counted 25 seconds before it was ready to read!