Small boxed fixed width makes things look more cluttered. Look at CNN & Fox News as an example. They use fixed width, probably for the same reason, but it's not as obvious due to the sides of the header expanding to fill the screen.Well, that is why I gave users the option.
That said, the math supports the default option being fixed width.
Pretty much proving my case. I understand you have your opinion but do you do customer feedback survey's? Because they do. I'm sure their web designers have read what I have- you can argue your opinion but the fact the majority of the world likes fixed width better is indisputable.Small boxed fixed width makes things look more cluttered. Look at CNN & Fox News as an example. They use fixed width, probably for the same reason, but it's not as obvious due to the sides of the header expanding to fill the screen
I don't think you read my response.Pretty much proving my case. I understand you have your opinion but do you do customer feedback survey's? Because they do. I'm sure their web designers have read what I have- you can argue your opinion but the fact the majority of the world likes fixed width better is indisputable.
Correct. The combination of the header colors extending and the fact that the background is all the same color without being boxed into the center. It's the same reason people prefer a monitor with a screen with a smaller bezel to one with a larger bezel, even if the screen is the same size.You're saying you prefer the illusion created by CNN because their header colors extend the full width of the screen- but regardless of that the FACT is their site is completely fixed width- all content is fixed to 1000 pixels wide on CNN.
Having an open looking layout that doesn't feel confined absolutely adds something of concrete value. It doesn't look as cluttered.In either case the fixed width is the important part- having the red bars on top extend the full width of the screen adds nothing of concrete value, simply a styling choice.
You are free to choose any number you want for the width... if you want 1800 pixels put in 1800.edit: I also don't like 1140 as the default. I'd rather see a default of a set percentage of the page so that it scales more appropriately. When I get my new laptop with a 2880 resolution display, I'll take a picture and show you what I'm talking about. On 1680x1050, JUOT renders with something like 1830 pixels in width, making it 1140 look like a website designed for a 15" LCD from 10 years ago.
We do not have the option of having an arbitrary layout- we are confined by the limitations of the forum software to a point.Having an open looking layout that doesn't feel confined absolutely adds something of concrete value. It doesn't look as cluttered.
JUOT membership is generally resistant to change. I think it has something to do with Obama's Hope & Change slogan...We do not have the option of having an arbitrary layout- we are confined by the limitations of the forum software to a point.
Enough people complained about these minor changes- imagine the complaints from a full style change.
****ing with the forum is helping him get walking againstop ****ing with the forum look