Forum:UnNews and screen resolution

Forums: Index > Village Dump > UnNews and screen resolution

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4954 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

There is an unstated reason why the nearby Forum on Olipro's proposed re-skin of the UnNews Front Page got intractable and personal. It is because we are viewing the page differently. Happytimes (see Sec. 10.3.1) discloses that he is viewing UnNews on a 768x1024 screen with some God-awful local preferences.

In fact, most advocates of the status quo, previously identified only as "UnNews regulars," also are technology dinosaurs, with not just ink-stained hands but low-resolution monitors. All of my three browser-capable PCs have 768x1024. (I proudly standardized on this, to minimize differences among machines, just as the rest of the world moved on; and worse, I view Uncyclopedia in 12-point versus the default 10-point.) Zim ulator, admits to being a comparably cheap bastard, though he now has a slightly better screen due to a hand-me-down. Other UnNews mavens are demographically likely also to be display old-timers. Whereas the other faction mostly uses high-res monitors: Olipro has three times the number of pixels as I do.

This difference in perception underlies Olipro's belief that UnNews can no longer improve through the piecemeal changes of the last six months, our side's resentment of the total re-skin, and much of the resulting drama.

The issue of whether UnNews should look like WikiNews is a false one, and in any case a minor aesthetic issue that need not have come to the Forum. But it is a proxy for the real issue: WikiNews, and Olipro's imitation, looks better on high-resolution screens, on which the current, two-column UnNews Front Page flagrantly wastes screen real-estate. However, on low-resolution screens, Olipro's reskin, though it avoids imposing the horizontal scroll bar as one old proposal did, provides an excessive number of cramped columns. It doesn't keep you from enjoying the Front Page or from gaining access to desired articles, but it will always be less than optimal on those screens. The Uncyclopedia home page has similar issues.

Olipro in the other Forum provides statistics that a majority of web-surfers has larger screens. The best solution, however, is not to ignore the old-timers. We ought to have several presentation options suitable for different screen sizes, driven by the same content and templates. (Indeed, Happytimes suggested this in his vote at the original Forum.) Better yet, detect the screen resolution of new users and pick a default rendition that will look the best to them. Spıke ¬ 12:46 4-Sep-10

"768x1024"? The monitor is taller than it is wide? Are we in SidewaysWorld? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

can we just make it not look bad, as a first priority? -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 07:00, Sep 5

Problem invariably solved

So, I changed my resolution to 1024x768 and adjusted the main page beta layout so as to make it look much better on lower resolutions. It's also fine for 800x600. Everything with a resolution at 1152x864 or higher (76% of people have a higher monitor resolution than you and Happytimes do, SPIKE) will see it as it is intended to be viewed, but it is now fine for all resolutions. Perfectionist advice is welcome. Furthermore, problems with the header on low resolutions are the result of the Monobook skin. Switching to the Uncyclopedia default skin in your preferences will correct this (this is how all readers who are not logged in will see the UnNews page). --EMC ^[TALK] 08:36 Sep 5 2010

I should add that NOBODY should be using Monobook over Uncyclopedia; the Uncyclopedia skin is basically Monobook with a series of CSS and JS modifications, if you're not using Uncyclopedia, it ruins a lot of reskinned pages and the like. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 08:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

• The horizontal scroll bar is back! and the only element that seems to demand more than 1024px is the initial banner. On which--
  • "The Team" links to the same page as "Audio" does, and to a section head that isn't there, as I long ago reverted it from the cheerleaderish "Team" to the deadpan "Audio personnel." The banner really doesn't need a link to a directory of one department, and I don't think we have a directory of contributors to UnNews at large.
  • The effort to extinct the Goldstein award failed, so it should be included in the banner alongside the Foolitzer.
• I prefer the existing Nav Bar because--
  • It differentiates between "sections" (on which you will see content you won't see on the Front Page) and "specialty indexes" (which are merely lists of Front Page articles on a theme, which go back further in history than the Front Page does).
  • I like the colors. You may wish to pastelize them--Zim confessed on my talk page that the garish colors of his departments owe to his French-Canadian heritage. However, in the case of Oil Spill, garishness was the joke.
  • The idea in a previous forum of icons on section tabs was also good.
• You still need to find a way to put dates on the headlines--to break up the list and to show that it is not just a list of pages but that it relates to current events.
• I would prefer a longer list of Audios over point-size compatibility with the rest of the page. Spıke ¬ 09:53 5-Sep-10

The Horizontal scrollbar is most certainly not back, if it is, you are using Monobook instead of Uncyclopedia. As for your issues which are essentially personal taste, I'd prefer it if such things were left up to the audience. as I keep trying to say: the website is supposed to be designed for the readership, not as a vanity project suited to the whims of the people managing the backend. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 10:33, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Vanity project? Shame, as the discussion up to that point was looking promising and less acrid than before.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Implying it's acrid makes it appear acrid. so thanks for that. Now Romartus, I'm going to ask you, did you want to add something to this discussion, or did you simply want to find a phrase to jump on so you can stir up the shit? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

My comment was more about the previous forum and the observation on how that was turning into less about a redesign and more about the possible motives of those behind the changes. I was concerned that this forum could go the same way which is why I picked up on your comment. That's all. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Right, because I'm not interested in this being railroaded into a confrontation, if anyone finds the comment objectionable I'll rephrase it, nonetheless, the essence of the point I was making remains the same. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to mention

That I often view Uncyclopedia at 854x480, because that is the screen resolution of the Motorola Droid. You don't have to be ten years behind the technology curve to have a small screen. pillow talk 19:17, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

a mobile version wouldn't be a bad idea. The idea being to maintain the same content as the main page but simply arrange it so as to complement a mobile display. like how Slashdot do it. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:47, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

That's the way all respectable news sources do it! Even some porn sites do it that way. So regardless of what we're supposed to be imitating, we should have a mobile version. Is there any way we could use some sort of magical templates or some sort of script so they don't have to be independantly updated? Because 1. That would suck ass and 2. I doubt it would continue to be updated after a little bit. Also, PENISPENISPENIS -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 22:38, Sep 6