Make the site schemes fit the browser size

[alashandra]

Title:
Make the site schemes fit the browser size

Area:
Site Schemes

Summary:
The default site scheme uses a very small amount of the browser width. Those that use the full browser width are too dark to be comfortable to some.

Description:
I admit that my browser isn't exactly the usual. I have a wide screen which means that my browser is wider, too. But I found that using Tropospherical Red and Tropospherical Purple that these site schemes seem to be framed, so that anything that runs beyond the width of the header end up with an interior scroll bar at the bottom of the page.

Checking out the other site schemes, I found that Celerity squished up the later replies to a long thread. The Gradation schemes also take advantage of the full browser width, but they're dark enough to be difficult to the eye.

There should be a few more site scheme choices, including ones with lighter backgrounds. Even a lighter version of the Gradation schemes would be useful.

Poll #3196 Make the site schemes fit the browser size

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
12 (27.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (16.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
4 (9.3%)

(I have no opinion)
20 (46.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[ratcreature]

I'm not against other site schemes, but I like that the default has a little white space. On my monitor size it uses most of the width, but there is a little space to the left and the right (actually less to the right than the left, maybe as wide as a finger is thick).

[syntheid]

+1

[sky]

I like a little margin myself, but on my 1280x800 widescreen laptop, about 1/4th or more of the total page is taken up by the blank space on each side. It's okay for reading posts, but horrible for comments, especially when threads start to get really long and disappear into that awful scrolling iframe.

[afuna]

Hmm, I wonder if we could limit the size of the posts to the same as now, but not limit the comments width? Or limit each comment to be a maximum of how wide each post can be, but then let the comment threads extend to the right to infinity.

[kyrielle]

I think this would be better. I know some people have trouble reading lines of text that are too wide - I don't, particularly, but some reading styles run into issues. But each individual item would be only so wide, they'd just move over as needed...that could work nicely.

[cesy]

I like this idea.

I really like that the site scheme doesn't take up the whole width, but I do see the problem with some deep comment threads.

[alashandra]

I think this is pretty good, myself.

[aedifica]

+1 for the second option mentioned.

[branchandroot]

If both Tropo and Celerity have a fixed width on one of the interior divs (which is what it sounds like) then that should be fixed most definitely. Those are both supposed to be liquid layouts. A comparison with the Gradation css should pin down the problem, if Gradation has escaped it (hopefully *crosses fingers*).

That should be done /before/ putting Blueshift or any further schemes online, so the fixed code can be copied.

*wistful* Actually, what would be lovely is to completely revamp the way the site schemes are handled so they all use the same template, cutting down on the insane amount of prep work, and maybe even making the css cascade nicely, which would make creating "child" schemes a lot easier; but that seems like it would be a considerably larger item from what I've seen of the site templates.

[azurelunatic]

Wonder if it would be possible to select fixed/liquid for each site scheme. More dev work but...

[branchandroot]

*curious* Like... check site scheme you want, check fixed or liquid, enter desired width if fixed? That would be reasonably simple css, but it seems like it would be asking for trouble and more complication than the interface needs. The whole point of a liquid layout is that it fills whatever space is available, so I'm not sure what benefit a fixed option would offer.

[azurelunatic]

It can become a usability problem for people with oceans and oceans of screen space due to having a big screen, when the lines of text are too long to be read comfortably.

[majoline]

I use Gradation because I have light sensitivity problems and the fact that I can choose to use a dark schema on Dreamwidth that functions with the site and doesn't require me to change the css on my browser manually is the best feature here.

If the Gradation is too dark, maybe there can be a lighter, different option addition? Please? I really like being able to read DW without difficulty.

[denise]

Don't worry, nothing in this suggestion is "make Gradation lighter" -- the poster was just saying that Gradation (which has the behavior sie is suggesting for Tropo) is too dark for hir, so "just use Gradation" to get that behavior wouldn't work.

[majoline]

gotcha! I hope that they can find them a happy medium of choices, then.

[dancing_serpent]

Hm, I actually like the fixed width.

[musyc]

Same here. My primary complaint with LJ/IJ is that the base site scheme pages are liquid, and on a 1440x900 monitor, I get eye fatigue just trying to get to the end of a line. I love the fixed width here.

[jeeps]

love the tropospherical site scheme, but that is my one problem with it. i don't even mind the white space, but i hate the internal scrollbar when comments get long.

[kate_nepveu]

Yes, the internal scrollbar is extremely annoying.

[azurelunatic]

I never remember that it is internal, so I freak out because something's broken every single time.