|
You may want to nuke this[^] message/account.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Nuked.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is, unfortunately, a known bug. It's in the queue to be fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANOTHER ARTICLE POSTED BY A DMBSHIT
[^]
This is actually so over the top as to be funny, but I wouldn't mind it being deleted from my message board. I know there's a mechanism in place for use to vote for its deletion, but that could take awhile.
|
|
|
|
|
Leslie Sanford wrote: This is actually so over the top as to be funny
I don't agree, I cannot find any humour in this post. It looks like this person has created this login id today just to post this inane comment. Do we really want this sort of thing to be encouraged?
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I don't agree, I cannot find any humour in this post.
I meant funny as in whatever sting the poster intended to inflict (I'm the one the insult was directed towards) was dimished by how over the top his post is. He's trying so hard to be insulting to the point of it being silly.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Do we really want this sort of thing to be encouraged?
Uh, no. That's why I'm requesting that the post be deleted. And it wouldn't hurt to delete the acount as well, in my opinion.
I'm a little surprised I'm having to explain this.
|
|
|
|
|
Leslie Sanford wrote: I'm a little surprised I'm having to explain this.
Well you wrote
Leslie Sanford wrote: This is actually so over the top as to be funny
in your original post. I don't know what type of English you use but in English English 'funny' means humorous, provoking laughter, so I thought you meant that it made you laugh; hence my comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I don't know what type of English you use but in English English 'funny' means humorous, provoking laughter, so I thought you meant that it made you laugh;
The guy was trying so hard to insult me to the point where I couldn't help buy laugh at it. Not in a laugh out loud sort of way or the way you'd laugh at a good joke, but rather laughing at someone trying to insult you who comes across as being silly instead. That's what I meant by his post being so over the top to the point of being "funny."
But I wouldn't want to encourage this type of behavior, not at all. So deleting his post from my article's message board will be fine with me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Enough people voted to remove it that it's gone, and all that's left is his rather appropriate name and a Message Automatically Removed. It's all rather fitting really.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
I am viewing the web on a large monitor. It is frustrating trying to read articles on this site in a modern browser - the text flows all the way across the page, regardless of how wide the monitor is!
The only way to actually read an article is to open the site/page in a separate browser instance, and then manually resize the browser down to a width that is comfortable for reading - something less than 230 characters per line or thirty or forty words per line...
"The ideal line length for text layout is based on the physiology of the human eye... At normal reading distance the arc of the visual field is only a few inches - about the width of a well-designed column of text, or about 12 words per line. Research shows that reading slows and retention rates fall as line length begins to exceed the ideal width, because the reader then needs to use the muscles of the eye and neck to track from the end of one line to the beginning of the next line. If the eye must traverse great distances on the page, the reader is easily lost and must hunt for the beginning of the next line. Quantitative studies show that moderate line lengths significantly increase the legibility of text.
Web Style Guide - Basic Design Principles for Creating Website
Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton
2nd edition, page 97."
Please change the site layout to make it easier to read the articles without having to manually resize the browser window.
|
|
|
|
|
Life has come full circle  Just 6-7 years ago, people were complaining that the articles were scrolling horizontally. And now you have the exact opposite problem!
|
|
|
|
|
Life is like that, isn't it?
Maybe it's time to update the site to reflect the fact that most users have monitors capable of display more than 1024x768.
|
|
|
|
|
camainc wrote: Maybe it's time to update the site to reflect the fact that most users have monitors capable of display more than 1024x768.
Out of curiosity, what size monitor do you have, and at what resolution?
I am on a 24" monitor at 1920x1200 and I am not majorly inconvenienced when I read articles.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you are representative of the majority. Perhaps you have trained yourself to read very wide columns of text, especially if you are on this site a lot.
There is a lot of great information on the web regarding usability. I posted a quote about long text columns earlier. Here is another link:
http://informationarchitects.jp/100E2R
What you guys do on your site is up to you, of course, but I would imagine there are a lot of people who would come here more often (myself included) if your site was easier on the eyes.
Oh, and I am looking at this site right now on a 20" LCD at 1600 x 1200.
|
|
|
|
|
camainc wrote: I don't think you are representative of the majority. Perhaps you have trained yourself to read very wide columns of text, especially if you are on this site a lot.
That's possible - as I said in my previous post, I was asking out of curiosity.
camainc wrote: What you guys do on your site is up to you, of course, but I would imagine there are a lot of people who would come here more often (myself included) if your site was easier on the eyes.
I don't work for CP (I used to), so my reply to you was my personal opinion. That said, Chris and his team usually go to great lengths to make the site more usable, and I am sure they'll respect your feedback and suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you are cheating and not using your browser with a maximized window? 
|
|
|
|
|
Nor am I on a 22" screen. What will set me off with site design is having 30-50% of my screen space wasted because the designer hardcoded an 800/1024px wide layout.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Turn your monitor 90° and then you won't have that problem.
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If I do that, all the text will fall to the bottom of the screen and will get all piled up.
|
|
|
|
|
camainc wrote: If I do that, all the text will fall to the bottom of the screen and will get all piled up.
He was not joking, I think he meant that you try it out in portrait orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
First, that assumes I have a monitor that swivels (I don't).
Second, why should I turn my monitor around just to view this site? Most of the sites I visit on a regular basis have made the switch to Web 2.0 usability standards, and besides, my monitor setup is perfect for development using Visual Studio, and I don't want to change just to read an article now and then on a site that I rarely visit anymore.
I only posted the original comment as a suggestion to the site owners for how they might adapt this site to accommodate more viewers. It was not a request for suggestions as to how I could change my monitor or website viewing practices to adapt to this site, although I appreciate the helpful intentions behind the suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
camainc wrote: I only posted the original comment as a suggestion to the site owners for how they might adapt this site to accommodate more viewers. It was not a request for suggestions as to how I could change my monitor or website viewing practices to adapt to this site, although I appreciate the helpful intentions behind the suggestions.
When you replied jokingly that the text would fall down, I assumed that you thought Ed Poore was joking too. And I thought I'd just clarify that perhaps Ed was not joking.
I don't seriously expect anyone to flip/rotate their monitor just for a website.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: He was not joking
I was actually...
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
