Discussion in 'Announcements & Feedback' started by SurrealOne, Sep 13, 2012.
It depends on the users screen resolution size. The lower the resolution, the more choppy it is.
Moogvo yours is fine, I have a 2 year old laptop by Toshiba and resolution is cranked as high as it will go.
I understand... I have a Laptop that only goes to 800x600... And it's not even TFT, which means that if you take it outside (even on a cloudy, dark day) you can't see the screen... Compaq from 1998. Came with a whopping 10 gig drive and cost me $949.95+tax, tag and title. It was a great machine in its day.
Now I have a phone with 48 gigs and a dual core processor. Amazing where technology has gone.
The trend is to be more responsive to the screen size being shown, so we've got a max and a min width that are set right now and I'm playing with them as I go through some of these options. The min is something around 1100px and the max is around 1300px, so there's a 200px change in the middle between the two. I think I'm going to have to find a different method to handle signature images in the future anyhow as they're tending to get bigger and bigger over time and slow down the pageload of the site. ... but that's another subject altogether.
Interestingly what loads most slowly for me is the right-hand nav items, not people's sigs. Sigs are largely static content (a small image and a field from the database) while the navs each have database think time associated with them (separately), so this makes sense, yes?
As for sigs, it's nice that people who don't want to see them can disable them, just like avatars.
those sidebar items are cached as well, every 3 minutes for the threads and the other items are like every 30 to 60 minutes. Trying to look for ways to streamline all of these elements on the page and there's a lot of overhead that I can probably find a way around. Looking at some plugins that will help to facility this and will give back about 30px of width for the forum content instead of the sidebar.
You're the one! lol, we get almost no 800x600 visitors (like less than 1%) so I keep wondering who it is that is still coming with that resolution. ;-)
I didn't think any sites built for/handled that resolution, anymore! I've seen many that don't even allow for 1024x768, these days, as widescreen monitors became the norm 5+ years ago (i.e. more than 2 generations of hardware, ago), but with tablets coming out I think 1024x768 has made a bit of a comeback?
That's whats giving us a hard time these days. Screens are going larger ... and smaller at the same time.
I'll work on this, don't want to make the site worse off, don't want to manage 5 themes plus mobile either.
I guess this has come into the defacto thread for the recent site upgrades. So basically, I'm a member of a group of other website owners that shares ideas, information, "what works" and "what doesn't" ... and the most successful communities have a balance between site layout, menu & navigation, community content development and proper moderation. Sites that don't have a strong focus and goals to reach for ... don't grow as quickly as sites that make these a priority.
So we're undergoing a series of changes over the next few weeks that hopefully should head us in the direction of growth, stability and good content development. I'm trying to get this all done in my time before work, at lunch, after work ... and still have time to spend with the w&k, hang out with friend and not be a total 24/7 geek.
So sometimes I might just barely have time to get a code project done ... but I don't have time to discuss what was done. Sorry for that, I'm looking for a co-admin to help with this stuff actually so that's not as big a disruption in the future.
Separate names with a comma.