New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wide screen posts  

post #1 of 71
Thread Starter 

The programming to allow posts to go over to the right is not done correctly.  It should scale to limit the width to the size of the browser window, so if I have my browser taking up only 2/3's of my laptop's screen, the posts go off the window to the right and I have to scroll over to read them.

post #2 of 71

Same here.  This just started happening & it is aggravating.



post #3 of 71

It was part of yesterday's push. It works fine on my Mac/Safari. What's your OS/Browser again?


I'll ask the tech team to check this thread.

post #4 of 71
Thread Starter 



if you look at a vbulletin forum, you'll see that when you make the window smaller the text and text boxes also get smaller and vice versa.


on our platform this happens when you get small on a window with the right column, but one with a wide post in it doesn't seem to work except when it gets VERY wide, then it adjusts, but as you shrink the window size to a reasonably narrow width (as needed on laptops) the text line width stops scaling.

post #5 of 71
Thread Starter 

Why are some posts wide and some others not?

post #6 of 71

It's working fine for me.  Win 7 and Firefox.

post #7 of 71
Thread Starter 

OK, so now that we're down far enough, we're past the right hand box and going wide screen.  I'll write a long post and see if when you make your window narrower it automatically makes the post box shrink so the text wraps to the next line, or if it goes off the right of your window and into oblivion.

post #8 of 71
Thread Starter 

On the new posts display now it is very wide, and the little boxes to click on are pushed all the way to the right of the window, which is less convenient.


All in all the wide screen implementation to me is a step backwards.    

post #9 of 71

It's working perfectly for me in Chrome, Firefox, Sea Monkey, and IE 8.  I'd have to download Safari to check that.  

post #10 of 71

Win 7 Pro x64 

Works fine with:




Internet Explorer 

Internet Explorer x64



post #11 of 71

Yeah, I downloaded Safari and it's working fine for me.  Must be a Mac problem.  I thought they were perfect....


post #12 of 71
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Must be a Mac problem.  I thought they were perfect....


They ARE perfect, but this site is not.  I experience the same problem.

post #13 of 71
Thread Starter 

Developers need to develop for multiple platforms and browsers.  It's a major pain.  I build websites for my company and some friends.  Getting things to work everywhere is hard - particularly for Internet Explorer.


post #14 of 71

Have any of the Mac users tried it in a non-Safari browser? It works fine in the Windows version of Safari, what about say Chrome for OS X?

post #15 of 71
Thread Starter 

Don't have Chrome installed, but just tried Firefox for Mac.  Same issue.

post #16 of 71
Thread Starter 

Chrome downloaded and installed.


Same.  Can any of you shrink your window and not have this happen?  Note "Gettin"   cut off sentence.



post #17 of 71

I shrank my window in all of the Windows browsers I tried (Win 7 64 bit) and it was fine.  Didn't try Opera, but the other 5 I tried it was fine.





Wait, I finally found a width where it does become a problem.  I have a really wide screen and I hadn't been shrinking it THAT much, but found when I reduce to 11.5 inches from the 21.5 I have available, it starts to be an issue.  All browsers.  Once it's below 11.5 inches, the buttons disappear, along with all the text.  

post #18 of 71
Thread Starter 

aha!  I'm on a 15" Macbook Pro.  Screen is maybe 13" across.  I shrink down to maybe 8" wide or so to make a browser window that's kind of like a sheet of paper in aspect ratio.  That makes for nice reading and leaves desktop space to the right for other things.


That's where the problem occurs.  vBulletin continues to shrink the text box sizes as do most websites.

post #19 of 71
Thread Starter 

I guess I shouldn't say that most websites shrink down, but very few websites with text articles have anything that is that wide.  Very wide text fields make for bad reading.


It might just be a matter of limiting how wide the maximum is, rather then changing the scaling scheme.  The old way was better.  This way forces me to have my browser wide.  Particularly when posting.  The Reply box is too wide.

post #20 of 71

I think the aspect ratio may be more important in comparing things here.  Mine is 1920 by 1080.  So, I'm thinking that roughly around 1027 by 1080 there start to be issues, i.e. as the shape gets close to square.  Yes, if I measure the last point at which things are fine, the shape of the screen is almost square.  So, whatever your vertical is on your display is the width of screen you need on this page. 

post #21 of 71
Thread Starter 

1440 by 900 here.


Reply box seems to be about 1000 (minimum) which is just too wide.  It's the minimum width that should be changed.  Fine to let it stretch bigger if the user wants, but when the width of your browser window is less then 1000 then reply box and the post width should reduce as well.    Probably to about 800 minimum.

post #22 of 71

Mine is still too wide.  Windows 7, Mozilla Foxfire.


What annoys me is that it was fine before, now it is not!


post #23 of 71

Most high end, professional websites (,,, limit their content to about 950 to 1024 pixels, regardless of the width of the browser. This means you have to scroll left and right if your browser width is less than 1024 pixels and the content doesn't expand to fill the browser if the browser is wider. The new Epic width follows this standard for the minimum width but will expand to 1250 pixels or so if your browser is that wide.


The change is a problem for anyone who keeps their browser narrower than 1024 pixels or has a monitor that is less than 1024 pixels wide. I surf in the evening on my TV which is 800 pixels so I can't use Epic on my TV anymore. Not a big deal and incentive to upgrade to a nice LCD TV. I'm still running an old school tube TV. Its big, 42" diagonal, but the resolution isn't great.


I agree with SMJ that the minimum could be 800 pixels wide and still work fine for those that keep their browsers wider. Certainly 1250 pixels wide for a max is just too big. It is uncomfortable to scan lines that wide for reading. You end up reading the same line or skipping lines as when you scan back from right to left you loose your vertical perspective.


I design for the 1024 pixel wide browser. Users with screens less than 1024 are just SOOL. But usually the right side is ads, so the worthy content shows and the ads just disappear. If Epic kept to a 1024 pixel wide format, but didn't have the posts below the right margin expand to the edge of the browser, the useful content would be 660 pixels or so wide with a browser width of 1024 pixels or less. This would work for me.


As an aside, I use recently started using to check my pages. It is quite enlightening. When pages break the rules they are really hard to get to work on all the browsers. It isn't all that hard to get a page that passes the validator. You just have to test the pages frequently to keep from breaking things. This page had 176 error and 34 warnings when run through the validator. FWIW my sites failed miserably until I spent a few days cleaning up my tools that build my pages. Now I get 0 errors and 0 warnings. And my pages render nearly identical on Firefox, IE, Safari and Chrome.

post #24 of 71

I have alerted Kyle and Cristina about this thread. Thanks so much for the feedback and information. 

post #25 of 71

Here's the response from Kyle:



While cross-platform compatibility is certainly a priority for Huddler, achieving W3 validation is not.  In many cases, striving to achieve W3 validation on top of simply making a product work adds tremendous additional development time, and sometimes it is even impossible because of the quirks that our developers must take in to account because most commonly-used browsers aren't even standards-complaint themselves.  We're not alone either; take a look at the homepages for the 4 most popular website domains on the Internet: 35 errors, 2 warnings 9 errors (but for some reason it goes to a mobile version) 160 errors, 32 warnings 117 errors, 4 warnings
(these numbers will vary slightly depending on the content that is displayed at any given time)
So, we will continue to strive to support all popular browsers, but we will not be dedicating additional time to be standards-complaint.


Regarding the bug report, he said:


EpicSki is designed to be viewed in a screen resolution no lower than 1024x768.  The width of the page automatically adjusts properly above the width supported by the browser;  however, if you try to reduce the size below that resolution, you will have to scroll to see the full width of the page.  
post #26 of 71

I didn't mean to suggest that W3C compliance was evidence of a good or a bad site, just that it is a useful tool. It helped me to identify non-standard usage on my sites that weren't rendering well on non-IE platforms. My comment was aimed more to developers in general and passing along some useful info.


The change implemented yesterday changed the site from one viewable at 800 pixels wide to one that only works at 1024 pixels wide. I don't argue with that standard. I use it myself. Computer displays keep getting larger and 1024 isn't that big a problem. I was actually supporting the minimum of 1024 that was implemented yesterday. I only zoom my browser wider than 1024 when I'm remote controlling computers so the 1250 width of the content isn't an issue for me, although I don't think that width is particularly useful for the reasons I stated. Just as locking text into a given pixel size makes some sites challenging for users with aging eyes.

post #27 of 71
Thread Starter 

On point 1 Kyle I agree.


On point 2 however I strongly disagree.  Having text this wide makes for difficult reading.  Having the page that wide is fine, but the text lines should not be as wide as they are, besides the issue of keeping your browser window wider then many of us desire - it is just too wide.  The eye does not like things formatted this way.  That is why newspapers use columns, so that when you do a "carriage return" with your eyes from the right end of one line to the left beginning of the next line - your eye finds the next line easily.  Too wide and it slows reading down.  There is no reason why when we shrink the window width that you can't allow the text fields to shrink too.  For those that keep it wide it will be wide.  Why limit those who prefer a narrower window?  That makes no sense.

post #28 of 71

Thanks again for the suggestions, guys. I will relay them to the team. 

post #29 of 71

Geeze.... I was finally getting used to the new narrow-column formant and it changes again!


OK, tested mine and sure enough I get a horizontal scroll bar when the browser is less than Maximum on my surfing machine.  Of course, this is on a 1995 Nanao/EIZO CRT at 1024x768 that is just now beginning to show signs of wear.   (I buy good things have a hard time throwing them away)


The transition between the narrow column and wide column (post # 8 for me) is a bit distracting as I go from quickly reading down each post to having to read across each post.   In wide posts I now frequently lose my place and get lost in longer posts - especially those where people put everything into one long paragraph.


Is it possible to make the "maximum post-display-width" a User Setting?  I do like it wider, just not that wide. 


Come to think of it, there's probably a formula out there somewhere for "Reading" Width.   As I recall there are documents describing the appropriate Viewing distances for wide screen televisions (16:9 ratio).   These are intended for calculating the proper screen size (or viewing distance for a given size) and are based on the human eye's capability to 'see' entire images without having to move the eye left and right overly much.   Similar defined angles are probably appropriate for monitor viewing even though we generally view from a closer distance.


Poked around and here's a viewing calculator from a home theater site.  Not sure how much of the prescribed width should be used to display text as text requires closer scrutiny.



post #30 of 71

I think that reading the wide column format on my wide screen desktop is very uncomfortable.  It's just not worth the effort to bring up Epic on my laptop.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Bug Report
This thread is locked