Site width

As some of you may have noticed there has been a few small visual changes recently to help improve readability across the site, such as using a lighter blue colour for links and increasing article/content font size up a notch.

Next up I would like to hear from you regarding implimenting a max site width of 1400px.

To give you an idea of how this might look please check out the screenies below and let me know if you approve of the change or wish to stick with 100% wide, a poll will follow this post shortly.

Alternatively the whole site could look like this at a set width :p (Right now just the news page does due to the eyefinity video.)

Yeah, it's definitely worth pointing out that this is a MAXIMUM width, not a FIXED width, so it will still scale on smaller displays.

I'm pretty strongly behind this change as it drastically enhances the readability of longer articles on larger displays.

I would find it incredibly ironic if our forums did not fully utilise widescreen where possible.

I prefer maximum width, voted accordingly.

It is best not to use fixed values. With newer OSs, tablet browsing, DPI, dynamic browser resizing and the like it would probably be better to use maximum width and let users tweak at their end. The only thing that really gets me now is the image scaling script not working for super wides and no scaling in post previews.

I browse at 1920x1080.

I prefer max width, I use 1680 and 1920 width monitors and it annoys the hell out of me when sites like You Tube leave half the screen blank, in my opinion its a waste of space, and if I'm building a webpage I try to design it to make the most of the space on any size monitor. Also isn't making the most of the whole screen kinda our thing, we are advocates for proper widescreen and multi-monitor support, seems a little counter to our message to pillarbox people with wide screens.

While I quite often prefer sites with a fixed width for readability/usability, I think the spirit of WSGF is all about giving users their choice of formats. With 100% width, I can always resize my browser window if I want and I typically browse the site at 1920x1080. So, I've voted for 100%. Now, it would be great if maximum width could be set by the user as part of their account/profile for the site. But, that's probably asking too much!

I voted for the 100% first, but after viewing the images and learning that on smaller display's (such as 1280 x 720, will be used a lot in the future for phones etc) it will scale down accordingly, I believe the max-width option is better. Scaling isn't a real issue since text is vector-based.

Well, I have had issue when oversized images are posted. Though, an issue I have is that 1400 is kind of arbitrary for our widescreen purposes. It's not optimized to display two pages side by side or anything so you're left with a somewhat awkward width. I guess I'm for the 100% here. I don't browse in full screen, but I'm sure some people do.

1400 was the MAX width, thus it woulod still scale downwards to allow side by side viewing ( just as you can at 100%)

Also I beleive I have managed to fix the image resize issues.

Image resizing was been fixed for me.

100%

I'm browsing in a maximised window at 2560x1600, why would I want the content only 1400 pixels wide? If I found it hard to read or didn't like the layout I could just put it into a smaller window.

Seriously guys, I get tired enough of other sites being a column about 1/3 the width of my screen down the middle, why on earth would I want WSGF artificially limited to a lesser width?

By the look of the poll, I believe a decission has been made :)