Prosilver max width

[joedevivre]

A few of my users are complaining about the fixed width of the prosilver theme,too much empty space either side of the forum,is there are way to change it so it fills the screen of what ever resolution people use?

[JustChise]

I've got the same complaint from some users and while I haven't done it yet, I believe all you need to do is change the max-width for the #wrap under 'Main blocks' in common.php for the given style. I was going to calculate a percentage of 1152 (the max-width now) divided by the normal 1240 resolution.

[Hanakin]

I've got the same complaint from some users and while I haven't done it yet, I believe all you need to do is change the max-width for the #wrap under 'Main blocks' in common.php for the given style. I was going to calculate a percentage of 1152 (the max-width now) divided by the normal 1240 resolution.

he means common.css just to clarify but I would ask them to report their resolution their are using and possibly add a new media query to accomodate. Also if you could provide that back here for our own research that would greatly help us.

[JustChise]

he means common.css just to clarify but I would ask them to report their resolution their are using and possibly add a new media query to accomodate. Also if you could provide that back here for our own research that would greatly help us.

Yes, sorry, I meant common.css and not .php. Haven't slept yet as I've been building a test server locally to troubleshoot some issues.

When you say report the resolution, were you referring to the OP or myself? I haven't tested changing the css yet, but I think it's probably caused by the max-width here in common.css (line 181)....

Code: Select all

/* Main blocks
---------------------------------------- */
#wrap {
	border: 1px solid transparent;
	border-radius: 8px;
	margin: 0 auto;
	max-width: 1152px;
	min-width: 625px;
	padding: 15px;
}

I was going to try to change that to 1152/1240, which is roughly 92.9%. I think that should work.

[Hanakin]

Speaking to OP's users who have issue, the percent change you were making sort of defeats the purpose for the reson of a fixed width.

[joedevivre]

My forum has always had a max width,so it could just be a culture shock thing with suddenly having a centered reduced width forum with lots of blank space either side.

I never noticed it as I have a 1024x768 screen,but those with larger screens didn't really like it.

I have now set my forum to 100%.

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

curious, in a responsive design, doesn't having a fixed width of 1152 pixels seems to defeat the purpose of being responsive.

[Hanakin]

curious, in a responsive design, doesn't having a fixed width of 1152 pixels seems to defeat the purpose of being responsive.

no, sort of newbish question really. responsive is constantly confused with fluid. They are not the same thing and actually no related at all for the most part.

responsive means that the style adapts to different devices, which in turn have different resolution displays. Since its difficult to achieve this in code, we often resort to basing it off size. This then got confused along the way with the concept of fluidness. The idea being that no matter what the size if its fluid, it means that it would scale.

In fact it was never intended for individuals to assume that they needed to account for every size of screen. To be brutally honest those who feel the need to do this are hurting the web community by perpetuating non-sense.

he fixed width is actually the correct manner to handle layout for several reasons. The most notable reason we chose it was to better be able to control legibility when it comes to copy. In design their are set rules based on a millennium of research on the human eye and their ability to read which dictate a set number of characters per line of text to a specific size font based on distance from the reading material. To control this a fixed width is required. Otherwise we are perpetuating poor eye sight by causing strain on the readers. Add into that the poor selection of color in prosilvers color scheme and you are left with a catch 22 situation.

sorry for the lengthy response but its generally good information

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

thank you, makes sense. and yes, I am a newb when it comes to responsive design. heck, I didn't even know what the word meant until a couple of months ago.

I do not own a device that depends on it. my cell phone is just that, a cell phone. It makes and receives calls and that is it.

I work on desktops and once in a while a laptop. I picked up a tablet the other day and was totally lost.

I know, I am an old man but I have been doing this since the web started. I got my first domain name when there was only one registrar to choose from. etc. etc.


robert

[JustChise]

@Hanakin: thank you for the detailed response and while I am familiar with the responsive/fluid design concepts, I just personally don't see what the big deal is if some board admins want to tailor the design to take full advantage of the size of the monitor. I'm not familiar with the years of copy/print legibility or the research you mentioned, but it just seems a bit ridiculous to say we'd be perpetuating nonsense when 1152 scales to about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of some of the newer monitors. Part of the point of having a larger resolution monitor is to be able to see more on the screen. Like for example, this board is proportionate on my 1240 res monitor but on the 1920, it's like half the screen. Seems like wasted space. And again, it's the board users that complained about it in both cases mentioned here.

Also, this particular board seems to have scaled down the size even less than the 1152 because our board out of the box with no changes to the css files shows much more of the screen than this board does. And the text size seems to remain the same no matter how much larger the width of the wrapper/container is. It's one thing if you choose not to have it that way, but you shouldn't knock others for changing it.

[Hanakin]

@JustChise sorry for any confusion my intent was not that its right/wrong but rather why it was done. Ultimately a lot of other things need to be changed and fixed for it to actually be beneficial. Problem is its hard to introduce so many changes into a standing theme. Plus some of the changes are not simply done as they require massive rewrites to the code.

[Khaos-Rage]

Seems like wasted space.

It is, just have two windows open side by side. Why give all that space to just one thing especially a forum.

Screenshot_17.png

[Armstrong]

...//... while I am familiar with the responsive/fluid design concepts, I just personally don't see what the big deal is if some board admins want to tailor the design to take full advantage of the size of the monitor. ...//...

I agree. I have been designing internet brochures and websites since 1994. The best project recently launched in The House of Commons by The Prime Minister. Part of the magic of the site at hand was its variable parameters (adaptive!!!!) which allowed it to self format regardless of the a) screen resolution or b) monitor being used.

Ive seen edits for width conformity and also one thats inside the UCP for personal choosing.
I dont see an issue with having either a full width 100% choice v. [choosepixelwidth] option in the MCP but itsd never been written. (If only I could!)

I agree. £900 down the line for a decent monitor (as I am a Disney / animation engineer and wincy little pictures hack me right off.) and the website I want to see uses 25% of the middle of the screen??? leaving me no better off at all for buying a super resolution monitor???
Hmmm.

Another issue just to stress the importance of variable width v. fixed.
Here we never work on telephones.
Nor do we sell on telephones.
The reason is you cannot possibly display the super high resolution animation output in true 3D on a three inch postage stamp screen OR the beautiful digital quality of commercial advertising folios.
Hence there should be a choice.
Not a corner to find yourself backed into.

Just to voice the logistics.

[andrewilley]

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I can confirm that in phpBB 3.2.1 I've successfully set a value of '100%' for max-width in the .wrap element in \styles\prosilver\theme\common.css and it seems to work perfectly for a nice fluid layout.

I really don't care what the 'optimal' width as defined by some psychologist or pro-designer might be, I prefer to leave it up to the user. If someone wants a wider (or narrower) layout, they will drag their browser window to suit their own preferences. I'm not arrogant enough to dictate to people how they use their 24+" monitors, and I prefer that my site should comfortably reflect the size that THEY have chosen.

Andre