Support for Wide Screen
- Thread starter Grayfox
- 66 comments
- 3,141 views
- 24,538
- United States
- GTP_Jordan
- GTP_Jordan
I must admit to being quite befuddled by these requests - were that many of you actually using the "Wide" forum option on the old site?
The max-width of the site on desktop computers has nothing to do with its mobile compatibility; it's a design decision for readability and aesthetics. I find blown-out web pages that fill wide-screen monitors are far more difficult to read. This is well documented in various studies on website usability and typesetting, and tighter columns of text are the norm on all mainstream websites: take a look at Facebook, Google search results, BBC articles, the New York Times, ArsTechnica, Jalopnik, etc.
Here are a few more articles which explain how an optimal number of characters-per-line and use of whitespace around content improves readability, reading speed, and overall comprehension:
(This default post box width actually far exceeds what most professional typesetters recommend, with around 120 characters per line.) It's also worth mentioning the space along the sides is not "wasted" - in a full-width, fluid design, most of the page is simply cluttered by the over-blown and exaggerated page elements, as seen in the screenshots in the OP.
I've used "widescreen" monitors since 2005, and always grab the edge of my browser window to narrow it, making the text more readable if a web page does not properly format its text. If anything, I would expect other widescreen users to request a fixed-width design instead of the other way around.
As there is clearly a lot of support for this, I'll consider adding it as an option once again, but as it runs directly counter to standard design practice and my own experience as a heavy web user, I'm confused as to why this is such a popular request.
The max-width of the site on desktop computers has nothing to do with its mobile compatibility; it's a design decision for readability and aesthetics. I find blown-out web pages that fill wide-screen monitors are far more difficult to read. This is well documented in various studies on website usability and typesetting, and tighter columns of text are the norm on all mainstream websites: take a look at Facebook, Google search results, BBC articles, the New York Times, ArsTechnica, Jalopnik, etc.
Here are a few more articles which explain how an optimal number of characters-per-line and use of whitespace around content improves readability, reading speed, and overall comprehension:
(This default post box width actually far exceeds what most professional typesetters recommend, with around 120 characters per line.) It's also worth mentioning the space along the sides is not "wasted" - in a full-width, fluid design, most of the page is simply cluttered by the over-blown and exaggerated page elements, as seen in the screenshots in the OP.
I've used "widescreen" monitors since 2005, and always grab the edge of my browser window to narrow it, making the text more readable if a web page does not properly format its text. If anything, I would expect other widescreen users to request a fixed-width design instead of the other way around.
As there is clearly a lot of support for this, I'll consider adding it as an option once again, but as it runs directly counter to standard design practice and my own experience as a heavy web user, I'm confused as to why this is such a popular request.
- 336
- Australia
For me it's uncomfortably narrow. 980px is too small for proper a forum.
Actually now it just feels like a page for one line comments on a blog article, not a proper page for discussion.
What the "experts" say is "best" is not always the preference of the user.
980px is tiny for a forum and feels more like a small personal blog width where people post twitter like updates or a single article on each page as shown with your Google/Facebook/News/magazine website examples who merely write a list of 50 word factoids and quotes, not 20 different posts from 20 different authors with different method of speaking.
Too often these days designers are putting "readability" and implementing the latest in-vogue-standard ahead of well written, well laid out and engaging content.
Personally I would prefer just to have the site at around 1100px or 1080px which is much more comfortable for a forum.
Actually now it just feels like a page for one line comments on a blog article, not a proper page for discussion.
What the "experts" say is "best" is not always the preference of the user.
980px is tiny for a forum and feels more like a small personal blog width where people post twitter like updates or a single article on each page as shown with your Google/Facebook/News/magazine website examples who merely write a list of 50 word factoids and quotes, not 20 different posts from 20 different authors with different method of speaking.
Too often these days designers are putting "readability" and implementing the latest in-vogue-standard ahead of well written, well laid out and engaging content.
Personally I would prefer just to have the site at around 1100px or 1080px which is much more comfortable for a forum.
- 12,131
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Yes, i was and by the sheer looks a fair few did too.
As there is clearly a lot of support for this, I'll consider adding it as an option once again, but as it runs directly counter to standard design practice and my own experience as a heavy web user, I'm confused as to why this is such a popular request.
Could be because some people like more content to be displayed.
I don't find it hard at all to read or do anything with the wide layout.
If you get random internet users and not web developers or people who do "studies" and see if they like a wide full content layout or a narrow condensed layout, the results may be different
- 4,498
- Limburg,Belgium
- (GTP_) dustdriver
I use linebrakes to keep my lines short anyway.
I mainly prefer the wide page option to get the page content on the left of the browser window.
I often have overlapping windows at home, like a video or something that I place on the right.
With this centered narrow version there's wasted space on the left and the space on the right isn't big enough to place the video.
An option to allign the page content to the left instead of centered would already be enough for me I think.
For threads with pictures, a wider area is a lot more convenient though, so pictures can be placed side by side.
I mainly prefer the wide page option to get the page content on the left of the browser window.
I often have overlapping windows at home, like a video or something that I place on the right.
With this centered narrow version there's wasted space on the left and the space on the right isn't big enough to place the video.
An option to allign the page content to the left instead of centered would already be enough for me I think.
For threads with pictures, a wider area is a lot more convenient though, so pictures can be placed side by side.
- 2,746
- Limbo
- TurboV16
- TurboV16
I used wide in GTP11 frequently, but moreso when I was accessing from IE11 Metro as it would fill the whole screen. I like this layout when I am on a tablet, but on my 1366x768 laptop screen I have just over a quarter or the screen that isn't used. Even if you don't want to implement a 'Wide' setting, it should surely be possible to change the width of the forum to accommodate more of the screen.
- 2,722
- Knoxville, Tennessee
I only used the wide version of the old GTP, as I really don't like narrow forum layouts. Just too much empty space to the sides for me. Even on a 1366x768 15.6 16/9 display there is still nearly 2 inches of unused space to each side. So yes, count me in for a wide version of the new GTP.
While Jordan makes a decision about this in the meantime you can use Greasemonkey to get the effect if you use Firefox.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/
Just create a new script, active on the GTP domain of course and then insert what I posted on page 1. Set the width to whatever you prefer, I find 1400 a good size for a 1920 display.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/
Just create a new script, active on the GTP domain of course and then insert what I posted on page 1. Set the width to whatever you prefer, I find 1400 a good size for a 1920 display.
Seismica
Premium
- 4,346
- Guisborough
- GTP_Seismica
I just remember loading up GTP12 and noticing immediately how narrow it was, bearing in mind I use the site daily. A little bit of digging tells me that GTP10 (Which IIRC was the version present when I joined the forum in 2010) used the full width by default, and GTP11 introduced the narrower format, so I must have immediately switched on the wide screen option in 2011.
I think the problem with the narrow version lies in the fact that the avatars/usernames are inset, which means that the text area is condensed further and is off-center. It just looks a little odd to me.
As there is clearly a lot of support for this, I'll consider adding it as an option once again, but as it runs directly counter to standard design practice and my own experience as a heavy web user, I'm confused as to why this is such a popular request.
As long as it remains an option for users, you can't go wrong. I'm actually confused as to why the feature was removed
I find on my laptop display (1280x800), around 1150-1200 seems to be close to GTP11. Still a small gap either side of the screen, but it doesn't feel like wasted space as with the standard width which seems to only utlise around 50-60% of the width.
Last edited:
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
I admit I must of been using wide as a default for myself since I have been here, if you look at the picture below and see Jordans post how to use the marketplace his name never used to drop to another line it appeared on the end of the link in the marketplace?
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/board/gt5-marketplace.239/
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/board/gt5-marketplace.239/
- 3,446
- GTP_Coxis
- Coxis
Thanks for addressing, Jordan. I think this quote by R.S pretty much says it all. 59 votes vs. 2 against speaks for itself. I can see how after reading those articles on what seems to be the widely accepted formatting factor for modern websites might make you feel against adding this option. All I can say is I (along many others it seems) was using the wide option in 11 and after logging to the new version, looking for this option was the first thing I did.
Please consider adding the option back. Sometimes it is good to listen to your users, even if the feature they're requesting seems of no importance to the webmaster. Regarding the comment about design standards and your own web design, it wouldn't be too much of a deal since the default option will still be narrow browsing. Guests will still see the narrow design and only members that want to switch to wide view will change the option.
- 2,615
- Germany
- Wangan01
- Wangan01
I guess I could get used to this narrow design, but I also prefer "wide" for the reasons that have been stated by others already. I feel like playing an old 4:3 ratio game on my widescreen TV. Too much gray on my screen...
So, having a wide or zoom option would be nice indeed.
So, having a wide or zoom option would be nice indeed.
- 17,890
- United Kingdom
I would also like to see the widescreen option return, assuming its functionality was the same as before.
I'd get used to either, but I never had a problem with wide, so to go back to narrowscreen now.. seems so congested.
I'd get used to either, but I never had a problem with wide, so to go back to narrowscreen now.. seems so congested.
- 7,207
- Ostend, Belgium
- Speedy6543
- 24,538
- United States
- GTP_Jordan
- GTP_Jordan
OK, this is now an option in your account preferences once again...but I remain dumbfounded, as it feels like I've built a house, and you're all upset because you'd prefer the knobs in the middle of the doors instead of the side! 
Which one has more "wasted space"? Which one "displays more content"?
The pink bars cover the exact same area in terms of pixels, but the one on the bottom requires you to move your eyes - and your mouse - across the entire width of the screen (at least 14 inches or so) to navigate all the links and to line up the thread titles with their forums.
With the layout on the top, all the same information is right in the middle of the screen, no more than a few inches away - and the only "cost" is one less forum link. The space on the side may be "blank", but it is not "wasted".
In text-heavy thread pages, you can do another experiment by measuring the height of the page before and after changing its width. On the first page of this thread, for example, with a monitor 1600 pixels wide and the new site template's default width of 980 pixels, the height of the page is 9155 pixels. With the "wide screen" template enabled, the height is 9025. That's about the height of a single avatar - barely another notch in your mouse's scroll wheel.
The ultimate point here is that widescreen monitors are awesome for videos, games, and productivity, by allowing you to place several different windows side-by-side. They absolutely suck for reading content on the web with your browser in full-screen mode. (A lot of power users and programmers put their wide-screen monitors in vertical orientations. Give it a try sometime.)
"Readability" and "well-laid-out and engaging content" are the same thing, and constrained line length isn't exactly the "latest in-vogue-standard". Check out any book, magazine, or newspaper printed within the last few hundred years and take note of its line lengths.
That's mostly an illusion, though. Here's another look at the screenshots you posted:
Which one has more "wasted space"? Which one "displays more content"?
The pink bars cover the exact same area in terms of pixels, but the one on the bottom requires you to move your eyes - and your mouse - across the entire width of the screen (at least 14 inches or so) to navigate all the links and to line up the thread titles with their forums.
With the layout on the top, all the same information is right in the middle of the screen, no more than a few inches away - and the only "cost" is one less forum link. The space on the side may be "blank", but it is not "wasted".
In text-heavy thread pages, you can do another experiment by measuring the height of the page before and after changing its width. On the first page of this thread, for example, with a monitor 1600 pixels wide and the new site template's default width of 980 pixels, the height of the page is 9155 pixels. With the "wide screen" template enabled, the height is 9025. That's about the height of a single avatar - barely another notch in your mouse's scroll wheel.
The ultimate point here is that widescreen monitors are awesome for videos, games, and productivity, by allowing you to place several different windows side-by-side. They absolutely suck for reading content on the web with your browser in full-screen mode. (A lot of power users and programmers put their wide-screen monitors in vertical orientations. Give it a try sometime.)
- 6,231
- Halifax, England
- christara321
Wiegert
Premium
- 13,401
- United Kingdom
I guess I'm just used so to navigating this site in a wider format. Gives it an air of familiarity, though I've never liked seeing two sizeable empty spaces either side of the screen on most sites.
And cheers for taking the time to re-implement it, Jordan. 👍
And cheers for taking the time to re-implement it, Jordan. 👍
Last edited:
- 3,446
- GTP_Coxis
- Coxis
The people who share your opinion over this matter are the ones that will keep the wide option off. I strongly disagree that widescreen monitors "absolutely suck for reading content on the web". This statement has me dumbfounded. There is no right or wrong here, and neither side's opinion is fact. It's a personal preference. The beauty of it is that the debate can be over because we've been given the option to browse however we like it most.
I know this isn't a democracy and you're the site owner, so you weren't obligated to give us this -- so thank you very much, Jordan. I'd also like to sincerely congratulate you on yet another successful GTP overhaul. I like how you don't like to keep things the same, even when they seem pretty good. You keep the site evolving. 👍
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
I actually think the narrow option works mostly fine on my widescreen monitors, as the user names, avatars, and actual posts are the focus of the central area, with the posts using the majority of the area. There is a lack of other stuff cluttering up the actual used area of the screen. Would I like the area used to be a bit wider? Sure, but using the entire width just makes everything look odd. There still needs to be some white space.
Where I do not think this type of narrowness works is when the content is relegated to only a smaller portion of the narrow area. This example from ESPN.com shows what I am talking about. The main content is relegated to only about half of the narrow reading area. The content should take up the entire reading area or nearly the entire reading area and the additional columns should be outside of that.
Where I do not think this type of narrowness works is when the content is relegated to only a smaller portion of the narrow area. This example from ESPN.com shows what I am talking about. The main content is relegated to only about half of the narrow reading area. The content should take up the entire reading area or nearly the entire reading area and the additional columns should be outside of that.
