159 replies · 11,098 views
Hi Andy,
I got your screenshot. What your are looking at is the site with your screen setting set to an high resolution. So what look like wasted space to you fits just right for people who has lower resolution than you.
The biggest change on NOOL is going from an expandable table where the forums stretches to fit your screen res to a Fixed table. As I mentioned in my earlier post. Taking out the left table is a consideration so we can possibly increase the area to view the posts.
Spotnick wrote:
WenOrder wrote: If you are on a PC, then press print screen. It'll save to your clipboard. open a graphics program. Paint on windows is fine. Paste and save.
Mac you press shift, apple, 3. a file saves to your desktop, and you can send that file.
If you can open Word files on your mac, it's easier to ask them to paste into Word ;)
I have word
WenOrder wrote: Hi Andy,
I got your screenshot. What your are looking at is the site with your screen setting set to an high resolution. So what look like wasted space to you fits just right for people who has lower resolution than you.
The biggest change on NOOL is going from an expandable table where the forums stretches to fit your screen res to a Fixed table. As I mentioned in my earlier post. Taking out the left table is a consideration so we can possibly increase the area to view the posts.
I'm assuming Andy is seeing what I am seeing, so that I don't need to try to do something that appears to be far beyond my technical capabilities.
In other words... the "wasted space" is what most people DON'T see, that's the extra screen space YOU have versus the average user of NOOL...
Spotnick wrote: In other words... the "wasted space" is what most people DON'T see, that's the extra screen space YOU have versus the average user of NOOL...
Well, what shall I say now?
I dont like it its scary.............
it reminds me of when i was a little nutbag and mummy wouldnt let me keep the light on and i was scared cos i thought the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me and i cried myself to sleep everynight cos i couldnt have my nightlight on cos daddy said he hadnt paid the electric bill and he didnt care that i cried myself to sleep every night and that the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me
Could do with lighteneing up a bit nic,being blind as a bat its really difficult for mr 
to concentrate on the text,please dont make it so scary,i like red i promise i'll be a good boy.:(
it reminds me of when i was a little nutbag and mummy wouldnt let me keep the light on and i was scared cos i thought the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me and i cried myself to sleep everynight cos i couldnt have my nightlight on cos daddy said he hadnt paid the electric bill and he didnt care that i cried myself to sleep every night and that the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me
Could do with lighteneing up a bit nic,being blind as a bat its really difficult for mr
You're obviously not the average user...
Spotnick wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: Can you use this one? I tried to find some of NO from Taras Shev, but kept pulling up the video cover (though that's good as an iconic image itself):
Stiff Kittens, 1977
I added it, will be in the next release...
Nice one, but please correct the caption to Warsaw. They were called Stiff Kittens only on their first gig.
As wementioned previously, we did a poll to get a feel of the average screen resolution, and the most popular choice was 1024x768. Myself, my scressn resolution is over 1900 pixels wide, so the space on the left and right is huge. There is also a lot of people still using 800 x 600 resolution, so they probably won't see the extra space.
We Did put a lot of thought about trying to make everyone happy, but that is tough to do.
Like we said, we read the feedback and take everything in consideration. Nic has been working hard to make this happen.
Andy, you make it clear that you don't like the new set up. We appreciate the feedback, but I dunno if your last comment was a small jab a nic's comment about the average user or I'm just misinterpreting it.
Another thing I just noticed: there's a picture of the "Ian Curtis' grave". That's not a grave, it's a memorial stone.
One Brain wrote: Another thing I just noticed: there's a picture of the "Ian Curtis' grave". That's not a grave, it's a memorial stone.
Double checking my english skills Ricardo? 
I should have said Tombstone really, he was creamated, so there's no corpse there ;)
WenOrder wrote: Andy, you make it clear that you don't like the new set up. We appreciate the feedback, but I dunno if your last comment was a small jab a nic's comment about the average user or I'm just misinterpreting it.
Sorry, maybe I just misinterpreted Nic's comment as a friendly way to tell me to get lost with my opinion about the new design. But that certainly was not his intention. Neither was my intention to bitch around about the new design. So let's be friends again, okay? And Mike, the problem is not, that I don't like the new design, it's just that I can't use it anymore, reading the forum is really no more fun... And now I promise to say nothing more about this issue.
Very pretty and profesional. It's a bit slow to open from a public computer, but I guess I'm the only one viewing it from internet kiosks.
Steve Campbell wrote: Compare
That's opera which treats it as "small screen zoomed" and firefox which treats it as "big screen".
The speed of the link will be about the same as this place....it's hostsed on a 256up aDSL that's being caned by azurues. Sorry.
Well, you have a screen resolution of 1500+ pixels wide.. that's normal when the site is designed for 1024 pixels wide that you see so much blank space, no?
The new site look is very good.I like the idea with all the photo's showing great history. Good work mate ;)
very nice, but a little bit heavier than the old one to load (to broadband users, no problem).
At home, I have no problems, but using a web access at a hotel last week I took more time to load it, but congratulations for the like "Peter Saville" design, nice work.
Great,nice revamp,dig all the photos at the top of the page
A large WELL DONE to all you lads,or lasses who were involved
it reminds me of when i was a little nutbag and mummy wouldnt let me keep the light on and i was scared cos i thought the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me and i cried myself to sleep everynight cos i couldnt have my nightlight on cos daddy said he hadnt paid the electric bill and he didnt care that i cried myself to sleep every night and that the bogeyman that lived under my bed was going to get me
Could do with lighteneing up a bit nic,being blind as a bat its really difficult for mr
I agree with this. It´s a scary forum. Too much dark colours.
Suggestion: take the colours of the last cd as basic colours. At the moment that is white and orange, perfect!
WenOrder wrote: Is that linux?
Steve Campbell wrote: Compare
That's opera which treats it as "small screen zoomed" and firefox which treats it as "big screen".
The speed of the link will be about the same as this place....it's hostsed on a 256up aDSL that's being caned by azurues. Sorry.
Gentoo (which can a take a LONG time to install tho it;s not actually HARD to do a such, it compiles everything from scratch for you, so although it takes ages, the system zings and the package manager for installing other software is so easy I thougt they were joking), the window manager is windowmaker.
Not the prettiest desktop on earth, but I like it cos it's very light, doesn't mind running 2 seperate screens at a time (some of the better desktop environments like KDE, try to get involved in the whole dual head thing which I'd rather do without), and can handle 2 or 3 diffent people using it at once, IE, two or more independent logins each with their own 2 desktops. Try that crap with KDe and you'll run out of ram.
The looks are not helped by my preferring to have light text on a dark background, which limits theme choice in thigs like Opera.....not a bad colour match tho between opera theme and the default desktop colours firefox is using.
There's a pic of Konqueror's version up there now too.....I have it set to my "fairlight" colour scheme, possibly also using the ceremony font (if it's oinstalled I'm using it, I just can't remember if I installed it on Linux). I usually try to set up a user theme or CSS on most browsers, but some website will always over-ride it and I get dark text on a dark page. The new version of Konq, caches the page, then hacks the CSS into it somehow....never been overridden yet.
I was just thinking.....Gawd help anyone who has to log in here from a real computer, a Sun or an SGI or something....with a screen res of 4096xsomething.
Spotnick wrote:
Steve Campbell wrote: Compare
That's opera which treats it as "small screen zoomed" and firefox which treats it as "big screen".
The speed of the link will be about the same as this place....it's hostsed on a 256up aDSL that's being caned by azurues. Sorry.
Well, you have a screen resolution of 1500+ pixels wide.. that's normal when the site is designed for 1024 pixels wide that you see so much blank space, no?
What firefox is doing then is the "expected behaviour", OK-sie....but Opera seems to have worked out what your up to and ignored it, instead rendering it as is, THEN applying it's page zoomer, which apparently has enough smarts to shrink your borders....mad one eh?
Anyway, I assume you used fixed width for a good reason as opposed to "cos you could" and the place does look great. I just use opera for it now not FF.....ahhh dontcha just love freedom of choice.
BTW, regarding slowness (which seems to be response times rather than transfers) IS NOOL hosted on a real server or is it on a virtual server on one machine with 50 others? My bro, a dab hand at this stuff, says he reckons the site will run as is on a suitably altered Apache. Peronally I think he's lying and tranferring to a better server platform would mean a lot of unwelcome work for you.
Remember...even MS use apache when they can, avoiding IIS like the plague.
It's hosted on a real server, all by itself.
And no, I won't change to anything else than IIS, don't even try ;)
The reason why it's slow is because of the statistics calculation routine going on in the morning here (before, it was jamming the site completly, now it's just slow)
And also because the server doesn't have lot of memory for a web server running Windows 2003...
Eventually, when the band's help will be available, we might get a better machine than this celeron server, but this is, however, wonderful to have.
Steve Campbell wrote: Stop using f*in Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 I'm going to die one day and some moron stistician will work out how much of my life I spent waiting on this bloody site, retyping posts (yes, I'm getting better at remembering to clipboard my more verbose rants), and reading GIBBERISH IIS error pages, that ultimately say "arrrrggggh more than 6 people asked to to do something and I went poo poo in my pants"
I'm not getting many errors since NOOL got its own server anyway.
Well, the new forum is not bad, a bit darker than the previous maybe (background and icons, though these are definitely clearer now...).
I'd just like to have the bar on the right because I have to scroll on the right every time I open a page to be able to read the whole messages.
Also I don't like the small Arial font, universally known as the most boring font on the planet.
Verdana was much, much more pleasant.
Spotnick wrote: So, the message editor is the last thing to do in the forum section, that shouldn't be too long to do!
Please remember to link to the full smilies list.
One Brain wrote: Nice one, but please correct the caption to Warsaw. They were called Stiff Kittens only on their first gig.
And actually they changed their name to Warsaw when Tony Tabac replaced Terry Mason and Ian joined (he wasn't a Kitten).
Patrick wrote: I'm afraid I have no idea what my screen resolution is, Nic.
If you're on Windows, you can right click on the desktop background and check the options... there's certainly a tab (in English should be "settings", "options" or something similar) with your resolution. You can also choose to keep an icon in the system tray to easier check your resolution and colur. About the graphic program, you certainly have MSPAINT.EXE, you just have to find it with the search feature in the Start menu. Once you have opened it you can click Printscreen on your keyboard and paste it on Paint, then save it as .jpg It's easier to do than to write, really.
Steve Campbell wrote: Compare That's opera which treats it as "small screen zoomed" and firefox which treats it as "big screen".
Uhm, couldn't you browse on a lower resolution with normal font size? I think this site should be judged at 1024 x 768 with 100% text size (not 150). I still think it should be able to be correctly viewed at 800 x 600 (replacing absolute widths wuth proportional ones would help, even for higher resolutions), but I admit that the fact I have to scroll horizontally it's just because I have a low res...
