[Feedback needed] Atlas, the next version of Neowin

[84Mark]

Nope, main page will be fixed width.

Oh please don't take away the "><"

Look at all this wasted space on my monitor:

[Deathray]

Nope, main page will be fixed width.

Why? There was enough backlash the last time you guys tried to force us into that narrow frame, why do it again?

[gigapixels Veteran]

Because that's how the content fits. It's a news site with a limited amount of content on the front page. If you make it fluid, you destroy the ability to control how that content looks. I for one cannot stand the fluid version of our current front page because it just looks absolutely ridiculous.

[Subject Delta]

Is there actually any point to asking for member feedback if it isn't going to be listened to?

[gigapixels Veteran]

I have absolutely nothing to do with the workings of the Neowin frontend or design; what I said was simply my point of view.

But if you ask me, we can't do everything to please everybody. At some point, the designers of a website have to decide how much they'll bend their own design goals to suit the wants of the users, especially a minority like those using a 1900x1200 screen that don't like non-maximized windows.

[Subject Delta]

That question was aimed more at the devs, your post just happened to be above mine. Should have quoted, sorry

[gigapixels Veteran]

That question was aimed more at the devs, your post just happened to be above mine. Should have quoted, sorry

Not a problem. I should have written that in my post in the first place as I do not want to speak as a representative of those who are actually doing this work.

[DaveLegg Developer]

Is there actually any point to asking for member feedback if it isn't going to be listened to?

We have listened to ALL of the feedback that has been provided here, and have already made some changes based on the comments made. What we were requesting was feedback, not dictation of how we should build the new site. Some design decisions have been made for a good reason, if you read the thread fully, you'll see the width issue has been addressed multiple times. Simply put, we want to provide all members with a consistent appearance on the front page, and there is no way to output varying lengths of text for the stories to fill the space given by varying widths, as the server has no way of knowing the resolution used by the client. Allowing the page to expand without additional content, leaves large chunks of white space on the page, as you'll notice on the current site. This doesn't look good. Also, there are elements of the front page that won't expand dynamically, and would look terrible if we allowed them to do so.

Members are not being ignored, but at the same time, you can't expect us to fulfil 100% of the requests made of us, as they conflict with requests from other members, or specific design decisions we have made ourselves.

[Subject Delta]

White space isn't a problem for me but then I don't run at as high rez as some other people, its just puzzling that a lot of members seem to want that feature left behind and a general unwillingless to do so. Surely leaving the feature optional at least makes it up to the user whether to put up with the white space or not?

[Ji@nBing]

I would much rather have white space than those huuuuge borders at the side. At least white gives the illusion that the space is being used. Having the content restricted to a thin strip in the middle honestly just looks retarded.

And I agree with Frank Fontaine. Why not just give us the option!?!? If we're happier having the whitespace, why deny us of it?

[Phantom Helix]

Ok what about the huge blank space underneath the affiliates box?

that looks ugly to me, according to the logic currently put forth for having a fixed width front page,

then wouldn't it also be true that by the same logic that the total amount of front page articles not go beyond the bottom of the sidebar content?

Not that I want it that way i'm just saying,

I think the current selectable width is perfect, maybe instead of making it a button on the front page itself make it a user setting,

those of us that want the wider scale obviously know there are going to be some trade off's yet we seem to be ok with that.

[Simon Veteran]

We're not denying anyone the option of increasing the width of the site via Stylish or a custom CSS file of any sort. What we are saying is that the site does not operate as designed if we offer it.

We don't want to offer options that make the site work in ways we did not intend. If users want to have the width increased, they can do a simple CSS file with the contents #container { width: 100%; }, and be done with it. Otherwise, we have to put the code in to offer a feature which, in our opinion, breaks the site, and requires a lot more support because of it.

Personally, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

[Subject Delta]

How can users edit the CSS files?

[Simon Veteran]

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108

Safari: http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht/htcssusersafari.htm

Internet Explorer: http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht/htcssuseriewin.htm

Opera: http://operawiki.info/OperaUserCSS

Chrome does not support user styles as far as I can tell, but they do support (at least basic) greasemonkey. If they have improved upon their greasemonkey support, then it should work just fine.

Keep in mind someone will probably come up with the styles needed for you, if you don't know how.

Edited September 30, 2009 by simon360

[Snowl]

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108

Safari: http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht/htcssusersafari.htm

Internet Explorer: http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/ht/htcssuseriewin.htm

Opera: http://operawiki.info/OperaUserCSS

My guess is that Chrome is similar to Safari.

Paper Icon - Developer - Developer tools - find #container { what ever goes in here when done } - replace with #container { width: 100%; } amirite?

[Simon Veteran]

I don't think that change would stick if you changed/refreshed the page, though :/

Google is the only company with a browser that doesn't handle "userContent.css" in one way or another, without JS.

[Phantom Helix]

We're not denying anyone the option of increasing the width of the site via Stylish or a custom CSS file of any sort. What we are saying is that the site does not operate as designed if we offer it.

We don't want to offer options that make the site work in ways we did not intend. If users want to have the width increased, they can do a simple CSS file with the contents #container { width: 100%; }, and be done with it. Otherwise, we have to put the code in to offer a feature which, in our opinion, breaks the site, and requires a lot more support because of it.

Personally, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Fair enough :D

[Simon Veteran]

Sorry if I got a little harsh there :p

Glad you understand.

[Iian K]

So.... When are we gonna see at least a beta of the skin?

[d4v1d05]

So.... When are we gonna see at least a beta of the skin?

Yeah, 'specially us subscriber?:pp

And bah, do away with the wide version of the front page, I for one welcome our new, slim-only homepage overlord...

Looks good though:))

[White Cuban]

Honest criticism( only noting out the bad things/things i don't like, can't bother with all the awesome stuff :p )

Spacing seems to me a bit large in the picture, the line below the tabs (news,downloads,forums) doesn't look good separated in my opinion, it makes it less continuous and fluid.

i don't like the way everything is gray, including the buttons, they look like part of the window but not like a button to me, more like just text, they should pop more in my opinion (biggest thing bothering me)

there wont be the top bar right? its only on admin screen?.

[Ci7]

Yeah, 'specially us subscriber?:pp

And bah, do away with the wide version of the front page, I for one welcome our new, slim-only homepage overlord...

Looks good though:))

the slim Homepage is annoying when you got wide screen LCD ,like in my case

[HawkMan]

All in all, it's kind of ironic they haven't recognized that technology has moved forward and everyone either has a widescreen monitor or a high res 4:3 monitor, you know since they're doing a solo crusade to force some browser to ugprade to a work in progress standard.

after all the people who don't use a high res 4:3 monitor or widescreen monitor could use one of the low res device(i.e. mobile) layouts.

[Simon Veteran]

Common web designer practice is to design for 1024x768 at a minimum. It used to be 800x600, but in the last few years pretty much everyone has moved up. But a lot of people use a lower resolution, such as 1024x768, because they like the bigger text. Is it the best way to get bigger text? No. But people do it, and we need to support it.

Our ideas required a fixed width, and so we designed with the 1024x768 resolution in mind. It simply isn't an option to downgrade these people to the mobile experience.

[GreatStalin]

Overall, it's looking very nice! Much more efficient use of the available space...

One thing bothering me though - the rounded corners are only supported by Firefox, whereas IE users will get the non-rounded corners? Argh! Neowin making me switch to IE for browsing purposes? I suppose there's no need to be too dramatic, as long as it's not too difficult to revert to the non-rounded through some simple CSS tweaks!

Apologies if this was mentioned already, but I might've missed it when quickly skimming through the 9 pages.