Forum updates

[JAS84]

Is it possible to compromise? Have a variable width, but with a maximum set? So, it would cap at, say, 2056px?

That's already the case, simply resize the browser window on a PC and see for yourself.

[mention]SuperSajuuk[/mention] was wrong about it being fixed width then - but the point stands. Yes, like [mention]Pete[/mention] said, 4000px would be too much, but what I was suggesting was a compromise between that and the current maximum, which is only 1280px. Change the zoom percentage to anything less than 100% at that resolution, or switch to a higher screen resolution, and you have empty space at the left and right.

[SuperSajuuk]

Is it possible to compromise? Have a variable width, but with a maximum set? So, it would cap at, say, 2056px?

That's already the case, simply resize the browser window on a PC and see for yourself.

[mention]SuperSajuuk[/mention] was wrong about it being fixed width then - but the point stands. Yes, like [mention]Pete[/mention] said, 4000px would be too much, but what I was suggesting was a compromise between that and the current maximum, which is only 1280px. Change the zoom percentage to anything less than 100% at that resolution, or switch to a higher screen resolution, and you have empty space at the left and right.

No, the design is clearly fixed width. According to chrome dev tools, the tag that controls the content area has a width of 1200px, which is based on a minimum screen width of the same value. If a user had a smaller screen width, they would probably get a width value set to their proportions. Fixed width refers to setting the CSS property to a value that is measured in px, whereas fluid width uses percentages of the available space (so if the width is set to 80%, the width of the content will always be 80% of the available screen space)

You're correct that by zooming out, you get a lot of empty space so that could be improved using fluid width (ie percentage based widths) ?

[Pete]

That's already the case, simply resize the browser window on a PC and see for yourself.

@SuperSajuuk was wrong about it being fixed width then - but the point stands. Yes, like @Pete said, 4000px would be too much, but what I was suggesting was a compromise between that and the current maximum, which is only 1280px. Change the zoom percentage to anything less than 100% at that resolution, or switch to a higher screen resolution, and you have empty space at the left and right.

No, the design is clearly fixed width. According to chrome dev tools, the tag that controls the content area has a width of 1200px, which is based on a minimum screen width of the same value. If a user had a smaller screen width, they would probably get a width value set to their proportions. Fixed width refers to setting the CSS property to a value that is measured in px, whereas fluid width uses percentages of the available space (so if the width is set to 80%, the width of the content will always be 80% of the available screen space)

You're correct that by zooming out, you get a lot of empty space so that could be improved using fluid width (ie percentage based widths) ?

Yes it's not "fixed width", its responsive with a maximum possible width for desktop viewports that it doesn't exceed.

[Lyric W.]

I just now noticed the logo of the forum - Rob, you clever son of a gun

[IanJRedman]

Did the forum have a bit of a wobble just then? I was suddenly logged out, and then appeared to be logged in as a variety of random users - I know this doesn't necessarily mean I *was* logged in as them, but I think I could see their notifications in one instance

[Rob]

Did the forum have a bit of a wobble just then? I was suddenly logged out, and then appeared to be logged in as a variety of random users - I know this doesn't necessarily mean I *was* logged in as them, but I think I could see their notifications in one instance

Yep, it happened again, hence why I took the site offline for a few moments. I've installed a fix in the last few minutes that should resolve the problem once and for all.

[swaggyboi128]

Not the most major of issues, but when I hovered over the Mass Media section on the homepage the "9" in "12:39" de-centered itself and then fixed itself when I moved off of it. Again not the most major issue but it's there

[JAS84]

Yeah, it says 6:09 now and it's still happening.

[Neil Jones]

Can I sort of interject to [mention]Rob[/mention] with this post:
https://www.tvliveforum.com/viewtopic.ph...991#p52991

Notice mention of a certain individual who was here, ultimately banned (the name was put on the banned list) but they happens to share a name with a high profile chef and TV presenter and now it cannot be mentioned about the presenter's shows without it looking a bit... odd.

You may want to revise this approach Rob. Your decision as always.

[Rob]

Can I sort of interject to [mention]Rob[/mention] with this post:
https://www.tvliveforum.com/viewtopic.ph...991#p52991

Notice mention of a certain individual who was here, ultimately banned (the name was put on the banned list) but they happens to share a name with a high profile chef and TV presenter and now it cannot be mentioned about the presenter's shows without it looking a bit... odd.

You may want to revise this approach Rob. Your decision as always.

Thanks for alerting me to this Neil. I'll look into it.

[Brekkie]

Think it adds a bit of character to the place for the odd seemingly random thing to be censored. I think there was something at TV Forum that always got caught in the filter due to something years earlier. Think Sc***horpe got caught out too.

[JAS84]

Scunthorpe is so big a problem, it's a trope. Not a problem here though.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M...rpeProblem

[PATV Scunthorpe]

I'd certainly hope not

[Rob]

There will be some brief downtime tomorrow morning at about 8am.

[Neil Jones]

There will be some brief downtime tomorrow morning at about 8am.

You could ask the cleaner to use another plug socket you know