New EEVblog Website Install

[fmaimon]

For all of you who likes the old width better, use this greasemonkey script

Code: [Select]

// ==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')[0];
    if (!head) { return; }
    style = document.createElement('style');
    style.type = 'text/css';
    style.innerHTML = css;
    head.appendChild(style);
}

addGlobalStyle('div#wrapper    { max-width: 100%; }')


[apelly]

For all of you who likes the old width better, use this greasemonkey script

Nice work.

[T3sl4co1l]

It should be a maximum size if anything, not just a fixed width that makes the page just overflow on windows smaller than 1045px.

THIS!

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:

Correct. On a properly formatted page for readability the text would wrap around the image.

Curious...

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 had several pages of enormous 3000-pixel-wide images stacked 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 includes exactly this function for 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

[EEVblog]

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...

That'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.

[EEVblog]

(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.  :-

If 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.

[EEVblog]

I seriously question that Wordpress blogs have fixed widths as a direct consequence of the studies. I am more likely to think it is because smartphones and tablets are widely used in the portrait orientation. And for fashion.

Wordpress came out 5 years before the first smartphones.

[EEVblog]

Is anybody else now having difficulty viewing the forum on a smart TV

Works fine on my Sony Bravia, exactly the same look as my 1920x1080 desktop monitor.

[c4757p]

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...

That'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.

Have you looked at their website? It's horrible! It's so inefficient it needs its own loading screen, doesn't show any content 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.

[EEVblog]

Have you looked at their website? It's horrible! 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!

That 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.

[Rasz]

And if it goes horribly wrong, we know who to blame!
http://www.inerds.com.au/

...

The forum was changed from a 95% width setting to a fixed 1045px

did 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 poor

No one seems to complain about fixed width wordpress blog sites though, but that's kinda par for the course. Forums are different beasts.

not true, as always I was the first to complain when you "upgraded" theamphour, I also posted usercss back then to widen it from default its 1996 800px width.

Code: [Select]

.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: [Select]

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

[EEVblog]

I'll bet they didn't confine themselves into a narrow fixed width band up the middle of the screen then either.

Yes, they did. Many (most?) of the stock themes did. Go look at captures on the Wayback Machine archive.

[BravoV]

For all of you who likes the old width better, use this greasemonkey script

  Thank 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.

[BravoV]

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

[EEVblog]

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 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 width
There are pros and cons to both approaches.

[krivx]

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 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 width
There are pros and cons to both approaches.

I 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.

[EEVblog]

I 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.

Of 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.

[ataradov]

And those print articles and magazines have column based formatting because they are proven to be easier to read.

They 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.

[krivx]

I 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.

Of 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.

The 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.)

[SL4P]

Can't read it on iPad any more... no pinch to zoom functionality!

[EEVblog]

Just saying, so far you have a lot of people complaining on one side, and "studies" on the other.

To 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.

[SL4P]

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

[rs20]

I'm also pleased that it's getting changed back, but I can't let this poor logic stand:

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.

How are you making your fonts bigger? If I hit Ctrl-+ in chrome, the width of the page scales up along with the fonts.

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.

I don't think forum layout is life-threatening 

Just saying, so far you have a lot of people complaining on one side, and "studies" on the other.

Change 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!

[nixfu]

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.

[tggzzz]

Fixed sizes are BAD.

Just 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, thus ensuring you have to scroll more than desirable!  For example, see http://uk.rs-online.com/web/c/semiconductors/amplifiers-comparators/operational-amplifiers/

[TiN]

Fixed sizes are BAD. 



And it's NOT 4K, only 2560x1600.

Hope to see it back too