Missing the Forest for the Trees - Notes About the New Site
Well, I'm happy to say that it has been 24 hours and the new site is still up and running. I am afraid that some people might be missing the point of the new site, or perhaps be reminiscing about the old site and how used to it they had gotten. I hope that this post will provide a bit more insight into our reasons for switching over to the new system, and I hope that it will also show that what you see now is just a step in the evolvement of 911blogger.com.
First off, it should be noted that this site is definitely in transition right now, in a sense this new site is in its infancy. Whereas the old site had basically stayed the exact same for the last 6+ months, this new site will be going through a period in which we knock out any bugs, improve on the usability, and add a bunch of new features which otherwise would have been impossible given the previous site's architecture. It is imperative that our users understand that we are working hard to make this new site many times better than the old site, but it will take some time and some constructive help from our users, so please be patient with us!
We have gotten a good bit of feedback posted in the comments and via email. I have been compiling lists of the suggestions and bugs and I will begin working on these starting tomorrow night. Just to give an idea of the things I have on my plate I have made public my following todo lists, please check them over and if you see something you think should be added then post some details in the comments:
(more after the jump..)
Overall our feedback has been more positive than negative, however it is also apparent that we have pushed a button with a couple of users. The majority of the suggestions/complaints that I have seen regard the overall look of the new site (too bland), and the new commenting system (not haloscan). The problem right now is that these comments/complaints haven't provided much in the way of detail.
I do understand that the current look is a bit bland, and that the light colors and gray make the site a bit tough to read, and that nothing stands out. I am hopeful that someone with some time might mockup a new color scheme in Photoshop as a suggestion, this can be done relatively easy with the 'select > color range' tool, and given the theme flexibility in the new site it should be pretty easy for us to implement. Once we get a bit more descriptive suggestions I will go ahead and make some quick changes which will hopefully make everyone happy. It should also be noted that the initial focus of this release was to roll out the new functionality. Improvements to the site's layout was somewhat secondary - which is why the general layout of the site is very much the same as the old site - site appearance improvements are at the top of my list.
I am however not exactly sure what needs to be changed regarding the comments. I believe the issue is that users are frustrated that their replies do not always end up at the bottom on the page. This is because the new commenting system is hierarchal, however after you post a comment you should be redirected back to the comments page with your new comment in focus, so I am not exactly sure the issue here. Given the number of complaints we have received in the past regarding certain users dominating the comments, or always directing them into arguments on certain subjects, the new system seems a big step forward over the old haloscan system - it just might take some getting used to. If you can provide some descriptive suggestions regarding the commenting system I will definitely make note of them.
As for other issues please be sure to check out the todo lists above, everything in there should be taken care of in the coming days.
Which leads to the title of this post, 'Missing the Forest for the Trees'..
It seems that my lack of detail in explaining the reasoning for the switch has caused some to miss out on the bigger picture here. The idea here is to put the content creation and direction of the site in our viewers hands. To allow users to post news on their own without having to wait for us to do it, letting users add their own event entries instead of having to wait on me to post them, and letting users post their own blog entries to discuss the things they find important. All of these things allow our visitors to play their own role in the direction of this site, and remove the massive burden and frustrations that came with maintaining the old site.
So, what else can you expect to find here in the future? This is the $10 million dollar question. The best answer is 'a lot more than the previous site'. Our old site provided little to no ability for us to expand, not only because of the constraints of the blogger posting system and the haloscan commenting system, but because maintaining the site took up any time we might have otherwise wanted to use to make improvements. By making the site easier to maintain and more flexible we in turn open up doors which we did not have before. One of my top priorities next is the implementation of a user ratings/moderation system. This will give our users the ability to rate other user's blogs and news submissions, which will in turn dictate what content gets promoted to the main news page. This basically makes it to where a user can submit a new piece of news, have the community vote on it, and then have it promoted to the front page - all without the reliance upon one of our Team+Members doing all the work. This same system will also allow users to rate comments, blog entries, and news stories so that other visitors can get an idea as to how the community as a whole values a given entry. This really is just one example of what we can do with the new system, the main point here is that we can now do such things, without just trying to stay afloat.
I would feel somewhat remiss if I didn't at least mention my frustration with a couple comments we received today - comments which provided no real feedback or suggestions, nothing but a simple statement about how they hate the new site. I think that some people forget that this site is not something which the creators gain any benefit from. I personally work 40+ hours a week at a very stressful full time job, then come home to work on this site. I personally have invested a pretty decent amount of money into the maintenance of this site, and countless hours of my time to keep the site running. On top of all of this is the fact that I am trying to plan my own wedding, not neglect my fiance, friends, and family, and still have at least 10 minutes to take a break and relax. In the last week before the launch of the new site I have worked a good 4 hours a night every night. The mere suggestion that somehow the release of the new site was perhaps to ruin a good resource just a few weeks before the 5th anniversary is not only an insult, but a direct strike at my contributions to do what I can to help out. I am all about feedback, and I want to know what is good and bad about the new site, but purely rude statements with absolutely no real substance are really not something I feel we deserve. I'm not saying all this to try to garner some sort of simpathy, I'm saying it because we cannot expect people to continue to bust their hump trying to help out if they are met with unconstructive criticism. If you want to make this place better then help out, that's how we have gotten to where we are today!
I know some of our users are missing the old site, change can be tough sometimes, but given the number of features which we already have over the previous setup, and the ease in which we should be able to further improve, I am glad we have made the switch, and I hope that everyone will be glad as well once we have worked out the quirks.
Please be patient, and please be constructive in your suggestions, we will do our best!
I took most of today off since I spent 7 straight hours on the conversion yesterday, but I did make a few changes this evening:
- comment settings now available to users
- no longer require previews for posts
- users can now setup default setting for WYSIWYG editor (set in user profile)
- now display warning about WYSIWYG editor not working with Safari
- users can now access user profiles (can click on 'Submitted by' author name for more info)
Be sure to checkout my blog to stay on top of what changes are made each day..
Repost...
Sorry, I just put this in the thread below before this one was posted:
Blogger v.2 has been up for what? A little over 24 hours? I can't believe the harsh criticism from people who haven't even given themselves a chance to acclimate to the new structure and features. The amount of effort dz must have had to put into this transition is enormous and I would think folks could muster the courtesy to just STFU during the transitional period -- not with questions or suggestions, but with the instantaneous negativity. My fave complaint has to be that Blogger has been ruined in order to thwart the movement. Right... and people wonder why we're accused of wearing tinfoil hats.
It's normal to be uncomfortable with change, and I miss the old Blogger, too, because it had become a familiar "home" online. But it's just plain rude to start piling on the complaints without even giving the new version a chance.
I am grateful for the effort and resources put into this website.
Here is why
The problem is a lot of the positive changes from the author's POV are in the backend, ie for them and administering the site itself. For the user the new site is a disaster.
Just to give one example, at the top of the page of recent news items, "Alex Jones: A Call To Action - Alex Jones Warns of a New False Flag Attack"
Quite important you might think, so why is it an almost illegible light blue on grey (as a great deal of the rest of the new site also sadly is.) Important clear messages = black on white, otherwise they are obviously not important, and that blue on grey may cause as much as a 75% decrease in those who might even read the message, let alone take it seriously.
It's a really bad idea to mess with colors, and predominantly, a new color scheme and broken comments (perpetual 'Validation error'), including problems for all the best browsers (Firefox, Safari) are all that the v2 site offers.
One of the most important sites on the internet has turned itself into one of the least important overnight, and that is a terrible achievement.
Uh, blogs?
The possibility of rating comments? Listing events? I politely reiterate, why don't you STFU until you've had a chance to work with it?
I have had no problem with Firefox.
And you're obviously really invested, Mr. "(not verified)."
The new 9/11 blogger site.
Lighten up Fred. I am sure dz and the crew will fix the bugs. I for one am grateful to have this great 9/11 truth site to check out each day. I consider it THE top 9/11 site on the web. I am sure it gets more hits than ant other 9/11 site out there. When I first became an activist we didn't have the luxury of a site like this to keep us updated on the latest developments. Also, I am sure it costs a few bucks and quite a bit of hard work to keep 9/11 blogger going. Plus now it will be harder for the Bush trolls to spew their venom. Be grateful pal.
i have not seen this
i have not seen this 'validation error' yet myself when posting comments, and I have tested it from both Firefox and IE.
if someone could send in a screenshot them i'm sure i can get it taken care of.
as for the color scheme and blandness of the headlines - that is at the top of my todo list, and will be addressed after work this evening.
please send me a screenshot of the 'validation error' you are receiving.
I'm OK with change
... as long as things don't get any different.
:)
Keep up the good work.
Works great here
Other than niggling CSS issues (blue text on cool grey) its works as advertised under Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 beta for me...
I had been poking around Joomla as a CMS but didn't realize Drupal had improved so much since I last kicked the tires...
the 'daily news' link serves
the 'daily news' link serves as the 'home'.. it is in the upper left under 'site sections'.. i can rename it to 'home' and move it to the top if that makes more logical sense.
i'll add this to the todo now.
dz, can you make the
dz, can you make the 911Blogger.com logo link to home? That's pretty standard. I've tried to click it a few times. ;-)
right now the logo is the
right now the logo is the background image for the panel, with the buttons on the left and right being actual image buttons..
the main reason for this is that it allows the top panel to resize without running into issues if the browser window gets smaller than the logo image.. also it allows us to overlay the buttons on the left and right without worrying about them colliding with the header image..
not sure if there is a solution here or not, if anyone has any suggestions, or can point to another site that does this on a fluid (and not fixed width) layout i'd definately take a look at it.
ill still add it to the suggestions, i can spend some time on it as we go along.
Area Maps
You can use those.
area maps are of a fixed
area maps are of a fixed size though, and the top banner is currently fluid.. such that no matter what you resize the window to the buttons on the left and right are always at the edge, and the logo is always in the center..
dz, do you have the original of the logo?
...just the text ("911blogger.com"), sepearate from the background? Or the .psd that can be edited?
If so, you can keep the background as a background (centered), then center the logo on top of that. Then you'd be able to turn just the logo into a link, and it would all still line up right at any resolution.
People are resistant to change
Well, that's part of it. There are some issues too. It sounds like the "comment not validated" error is still around, and after spending a little more time with the site, the blue on gray (especially the blog roll, which isn't bold) is really hard to read. It's close to the default colors I realize, but the default for Drupal is pretty awful.
That said, I realize the work you've put into transferring the old posts, keeping the site live, and adding tons of modules. I know what you can do as far as helping the community help you keep the site going. You have the opportunity to make the site even more of a community site than it has been.
You're almost there, just a few tweaks to make to make 90% of the people happy. The rest won't ever be happy with change, but that's okay because the new features of the CMS will grow your community.
One more thing: the comments are *so* much easier to read than haloscan. I can't believe anyone would complain about them. If they *really* want the old convoluted way of looking at the messages, you can tell them to switch the little box at the top to "Flat List - Expanded".
Ok....
"I can't believe anyone would complain about them. If they *really* want the old convoluted way of looking at the messages, you can tell them to switch the little box at the top to "Flat List - Expanded"
Toggle threaded/flat?, comment ratings??? What is this, Slashdot or something ?
My main complaint on comments though is the Validation error in Firefox, I have to use the ancient Mac Internet Explorer (where the site is totally screwed up) to post here.
That said, maybe I was a little harsh in some of my comments, 9/11 blogger is still a very important site but as far I as I am concerned blue text on grey is a bug, about which I should also rephrase:
" 75% decrease in those who might even read the message, let alone take it seriously."
to
"75% decrease in those who might even notice the message, let alone read it"
This kind of thing happens good sites though, they get it right and then screw it up, and mistakes like this can kill really successful sites, and the owners still think everything is just fine. I've literally seen it happen to really excellent sites, so don't throw what worked and what is drawing people to the site in the first place just for the sake of it.
regards/peace,
Fred
The solution is simple
Let's fix the few small bugs and move on.
i will definately take care
i will definately take care of this tonight.
again, if anyone would like to mockup a new scheme in photoshop it would be quite easy to switch to..
i guess my issue is that there was no feedback before the insults, as though i am supposed to be a mind reader or something..
perhaps on my machine it doesnt look quite so bland, but i didnt try the site at different color depths - which i should have.
Congrats!
I'm new to the site, so I don't have to adjust to a new format, but Drupal is a great tool for building a community and enabling a lot of people to add input while keeping everything organized.
There will be time to play with the CSS as time goes along. And those Safari users! I'm trying to remember, but one of the built-in templates works pretty well for them.
Hang in there, whoever did all this work, and know that it will pay off in increased involvement and growth as time goes by.
Find a Shelter from the Storm
Still missing links to 9/11 Truth sites
Don't forget to add these links:
http://911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jod911.com
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
It's important for your readers to understand the real world of truth and facts exists outside of the fortified walls of this blog.
"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
caugh
caugh
Selective and weak reasoning
This sites mostly present selective contrary eveidence, which
almost never debunks theories but "just shows that it might have been 19 hijackers".
Problem is that some conspiracy theories are weakly supported and arguments used
by supporters have holes in them.
Everyone who has gone carefully through every evidence piece knows that 911 should be reopened.
Sadly, for some ignorants it's enough to say that "it's debunked" and they will leave the case.
Great collection of video evidence on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Halifaxion
Interviews and documentaries.
Complete 911 timeline managed by journalists (great piece of evidence!):
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
yeah, i'd be more impressed
yeah, i'd be more impressed with a site that proved the 9/11 commission was complete and well researched ;)
No
"Everyone who has gone carefully through every evidence piece knows that 911 should be reopened."
Too bad for you that no one has refuted the evidence that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Neither has any evidence of any "explosives" EVER been produced.
But some of you are happy to be sheep.
Test
Test
Site OK. Video collection on YouTube.
I find a new layout quite comfortable to read and follow.
It's OK. Maybe the headlines on the top and other menus
are just a bit too pale.
BTW: There is a grat collection of video evidence on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Halifaxion
These are great interviews and documentaries. Hakifaxion
is doing a great job!
Maybe you could add some info on the main site?
Font size too small or central column too narrow
Your site is getting 99% Web 2.0 with the tools available to us to take full control of the publishing; the last Web 1.0 inheritance is the minuscule font size, which requires us to be glued to the screen or to buy googles, and tires our eyes.
In Firefox the home page fits perfectly the width of my screen, but the default font size is very small, far too small. I have to increase it 3 times! Then, the problem of the central column shows. The central column gets squeezed with a normal font size, and it is not very pleasing to read, especially since this is the most important column. I would prefer the central column to be wider, even if I have to use the horizontal scrollbar to see the third column entirely.
In Mozilla (1280*1024) I do not have this problem, with a normal font size the three columns are large enough, and I do not mind using the horizontal scrolling bar, which was invented for a purpose. Using this bar is annoying only when one column is wider than the screen's width, which is not the case here.
I could not post this in Mozilla or Firefox yesterday, fortunately today it works. I got this everytime: "Validation error, please try again. If this error persists, please contact the site administrator."
Besides the columns and font problem in Firefox, this a a welcome upgrade of this site, with great new possibilities! Thank you for your hard work!
is it any specific text that
is it any specific text that you find hard to read, or pretty much everything in the center column? also, what resolution are you using (start > control panel > display > settings > screen resulution)?
the text size for comments to me seems just right, any other opinions as to what text is too small or too large?
Hi dz! Everything in v2 is
Hi dz!
Everything in v2 is too small according to me and Web 2.0 ( I believe Web 1.0 was around 10-12, while Web 2.0 is around 20).
Now after reloading this page in Mozilla the central column got squeezed like in Firefox.
I indicated my resolution in my previous comment: 1280*1024 (96 ppi) on a 17" LCD.
My font size is 24 "Nimbus Sans L" in Linux. This way I do not have to be glued to the screen and my eyes feel better at the end of the day. Specialists who have studied this say that most people are too close to their screen and it is bad for their eyes.
The big ideological problem with some 3-column large sites is that they absolutely want to squeeze those 3 columns inside the screen for esthetical/anal reasons and end up choosing small fonts, which is absurd since noone reads 3 columns at the same time. The column that everyone reads most is always the central one and it must remain the largest one by far, whatever the font size or resolution. That is what matters most.
In Jakob Nielsen's article, "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" ( http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html ) he states, "bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes; about one-third complained about low contrast between text and background." From Jakob's study it seems as though a majority of web surfers agree that readability and small font size is an issue, but if you read the opinions of web designers, they disagree most of the time, which is why they must not be listened to too much. And as screens have become larger over the years, it is possible to have much more on the screen even with a larger font size. Small font sizes came a lot from the small screen sizes from the start of internet, which has been copied by most people who designed sites because they could not think for themselves.
Do what you want about font size, but please let the central column remain the largest at any font size, one way or another!
I would not go overboard
20 pt font is way too large. If the font should be increased at all, it should be no more than 14 pt. But 12 pt is the most common. BTW, "Web 2.0" is just marketing-speak. It's not based in reality. It's just an ideal for a certain set of web developers.
If the font size of this site is changed to be much larger than any other site, it will just mean 75% of it's visitors will need to decrease their browser's font size just for this one site, for the sake of a few.
A better idea would be to go with the font size that is common for other sites, and let the user adjust their font size in their browser or operating system if they have special needs. The font size it is at now is not considered too large or too small by most. 10 pt is small. It is not 10 pt.
I think the solution for the middle column is to make the sidebars fixed width at about 120px (they're over 180px right now I believe), with the middle column fluid. The logo at the top could be a seperate image from the background, which could then be centered, yet remain clickable to go home.
I'd create a Drupal theme for some of it, but I have to figure out how I'm going to do that with a test site that still looks like 911blogger.
Web 2.0 can be seen as
Web 2.0 can be seen as marketing speak, but the reality of it from my point of view is that it represents the democratization of web sites. And as such it includes the point of view of a majority of the people about many issues, such as font sizes for exemple. The poll I quoted above and the point of view of Web 2.0 designers prove it: they agree: bigger is better.
The first and third columns should not be smaller: it would make them less readable, hence less useful.
And the central column being fluid is a catastrophic idea since it is the most important one, and it being fluid means that it becomes very small hence unreadable for people who use large fonts and/or not huge resolutions.
The font size should not be as small as Web 1.0 sites: it was a dogma that dissatisfied a large majority of people, as the poll quoted above proves. It was THE major mistake of the first years of internet by web designers, who were sheepish, who were dogmatically trying to fit as much as possible withing the width of our screeens without paying attention to readability, hence totally out of touch with the majority of people.
Let us not forget that younger people are the most vocal ones on internet...but they are the ones with perfect eyes. Only scientific polls should be listened to concerning font sizes.
14p is only 2p above Web 1.0. 2p more is far from enough to respond to the complaint of the vast majority of people about the font sizes being too small. Web 2.0 os a revolutionary change and it must be embraced fully to make the majority of people happy. It will mean that the minority of people who prefer small fonts will have to decrease the size of Web 2.0 sites, but it is better than the majority of the people having to increase the size of Web 1.0 sites or having sore eyes at the end of the day because they do no even know how to do it, or give up doing it on every site they stumble upon, in the end returning only to sites with large fonts.
Sorry if I sound rude of extremist, but I believe strongly in democracy.
i think the solution here is
i think the solution here is the hybrid called 'elastic'.. where i prevent the center column from ever being below a given size..
i cant make the left and right panels smaller because the links barely fit in them as is.. they are actually a good bit smaller than the previous site too..
ill be looking into it this week as i go along..
Yes, I had noticed that some
Yes, I had noticed that some links in the third column are too long to reduce the width of that column.
Elasticity might be a solution, but then we fall back on the same problem: what is the good size for the central column? Anything smaller through elasticity is less good and at some point bad for people with low/average resolutions/large fonts.
That is why I believe the simplest solution is the best.
Or different themes.
Sorry, I can't keep discussing this
...so I'll be brief. Take a look at most popular sites. They either use 12 pt font or leave it up to the browser by using ems (relative sizes). The latter is preferable, as even mentioned in a related page of the site you linked. He also mentions that you should use 14 pt or bigger for sites designed for senior citizens! 20 pt is completely atypical and unreasonable, I'm sorry.
As far as a fluid center column, I should point out: it's fluid now. I don't think you know what that means.
I should probably point out that I am a web designer, I'm very familiar with "Web 2.0" and it's just a set of design strategies and community-focused sites, nothing more. Unfortunately, I can't continue taking the time to discuss this on a 9/11 Truth blog. I'm not going to get all religious or political about it, speaking of dogma and sheepish developers. I just don't think we need to make this any more complicated than it needs to be.
dz, the colors are much more legible now. :-D
I admit that you know much
I admit that you know much more than me. No problem.
I agree about ems. The central point for me is that the three columns should not be forced to fit inside my screen's width while columns 1 and 3 have fixed widths.
About the fluidity of the central column, let me tell you what I see: when I reload this page of comments, sometimes the central column behaves like it behaves in a way to fit inside the space that is left between columns 1 and 3, which I believe is what fluid means, but other times it is very large and the horizontal scrollbar appears, which I prefer. So basically for me now it is more than fluid: it is erratic.
About 12pt being the most popular: it is the most popular among web designers! Not among the majority of people, because they complain about it. It is logical to infer that if they complain about it, if it by very far their main complaint compared to other complaints they have, it means that they prefer a font much bigger than 12pt. Senior citizens go on this site: this is not a site for children. And sooner or later, they will outnumber young people with perfect eyes. How should they be welcome?
A Web 2.0 advice I found:
A Web 2.0 advice I found: "Bigger font sizes, bigger icons -- bigger is better. Everyone can claim that they're making a site easy enough for your grandmother to use, but how many have got one easy enough for her to read?". Web designers tend to be young and forget that retired/old people also read their sites, well, try to read their sites. Do you want the tens of millions of old people who have old tired eyes to read the truth about 9/11 or not? Next time you go in a bookshop or library, look at the font sizes used in books for old people!
i am receiving a few
i am receiving a few comments from people who are obviously on 800x600 or lower, complaining that the new comments are unusable because the column is super thin.. im afraid increasing the font size will not work out to well without getting rid of either the left or right columns (which appear to be the problem)..
what i will probably do tonight is look at the old site and look at the new site at 800x600 and then see what improvements can be made.. as for perhaps popping up the comments in a new window (which was a lot better for low res users) i dont think that is an option right now.. so getting more real-estate to the center column will hopefully have to work for now..
any thoughts on the 3 column layout, or links to other sites that i could use as a reference?
Again, I must repeat that
Again, I must repeat that having to use the horizontal scrollbar to see the third column should not be a taboo.
In blogger three columns is very common, it is a template offered by blogger, and it is very easy to set the relative widths of the three columns. Of course the third column often does not fit inside the screen, but so what? It is not a reason to go back to 2 columns. Three columns are great, even if the third is not entirely visible. You can stop forcing the three columns inside the screen width (do you know how to do that?). Anyway, that is the only reasonable solution.
It is very simple: you have to accept that it is impossible to keep all columns within the width of all the screens of the universe while using a font size readable by everyone.
It might be possible the day everyone has at least a 24" screen. Portable computers will not be that wide soon, so you will have to deal with today's reality, which is not perfect, and cannot be perfect however hard you work on the design of v2.
i appreciate you having a
i appreciate you having a good dialog with me today.. i hope you will continue to do the same.. i will be tweaking the layout each night this week, so your input is definately appreciated.
tonight i'm going to handle the headlines and color, and start playing around with issues at lower resolutions.. we can go from there..
i think right now my columns are using 'em' (as opposed to 'px').. i think i may need to go with % instead to help out the low-res viewers..
as for it not being a problem having the horizontal scroll.. if that truely isnt an issue then perhaps i should've just done a fixed width layout.. my main desire for a fluid layout was precisely to avoid any horizontal scrollbar.. hrm.
luckily i could always do 4 or 5 themes and just let users pick which one works best for them.. this may be what we end up with by the end of the week.
Yes, several themes could be
Yes, several themes could be a good solution. I did not dare suggesting it because it means more work for you.
Still, you have to choose the default configuration. As maybe 20% of visitors use a 800*600 resolution, and many others a 1024*768 resolution, if you choose a web 2.0 font size, and make the central column large enough for people with low resolution, you will end up with a fixed resolution for each column I guess. Using percentages would not solve anything I guess. We will see as you try!
Now things are alright in Mozilla: the central column is large and it is a pleasure to write in this large comment box. The third column is out of sight but it is alright since I know it is there thanks to the horizontal scrollbar, and I do not need it right now.
The blue on grey headlines
Just adding my comments to the other people who already commented on this-----I hate the blue on grey headlines & links to other websites also. The print is a little small and blue on grey is hard to read and hard on the eyes. Headlines should be big, bold and black on white---eye catching and easy to read----like NY Times headlines. Black type on a white background is much easier to read and better on the eyes. A grey background is pretty bad. The whole thing does look a bit bland.
I beg to differ: for many
I beg to differ: for many people, grey is better for the eyes than white, which shines too much and makes the eyes sores after many hours. I use grey as the default background color everywhere in my Linux OS, Mozilla and firefox included.
can you tell me the color
can you tell me the color depth that you are using?
you can find it here:
start > control panel > display > settings > color quality
thanks, i will work on this first thing tonight!
Hey dz, could you put a home
Hey dz, could you put a home tab at the bottom of the comments. This way it would be easier to jump back to home after reading the comments. Thanks.
by 'home' do you mean the
by 'home' do you mean the main page of the website, or the top of the current page?
i just added this to the suggestions list linked above.
Safari bug?
On Safari, the text below (perhaps HTML control codes) shows up on some of the stories.
This is from "Speaking to Left Gatekeepers"
Stay away from “the illuminatiâ€, the “NWOâ€, black helicopters and secret societies.
Remind them that the truth is paramount, and supercedes political bias.
Point out that 911 is unlike any “conspiracy theory†before or after and has the potential to mobilize huge numbers of people; it can also shatter a Bushbot’s paradigm overnight, potentially causing Bush’s base to crumble.
this is an issue with some
this is an issue with some of the articles after the conversion.. it is on the todo list under tagging all the existing articles..
now i just gotta convince sbg and reprehensor to go through all 1600+ posts and fix any such issues.. maybe if i ask nicely ;)