rec.autos.simulators

by **Eric Cot** » Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:11:16

Hi all, been the most hectic days (past 10 days) I've been through for
quite some time, gee I never thought it would mean such a? huge amount
of work involved just to convert the old one to the new design...

It's not over yet, so far I've converted back to the month of March
2000, only that the previous survey results are not done yet.

Please welcome Phillipe Beaudoin has the new co-webmaster, in charge of
the design :)

take care all

Eric

http://www.racesimcentral.net/ (or this URL, please see the difference at
the extension) http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Stephen Smit** » Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:50:51

Jeez, Eric, I don't know the first thing about site design, but the first
thing I noticed about yer new design is that SRM is no longer sized to
fit--I have to scroll sideways all over the page to read from one line to
the next. Is that what you had in mind?

--Steve Smith

by **Eric Cot** » Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:01:49

Stephen, this was a hard choice but we decided to now run in 1024 x 768
instead of 800 x 600. I'll explain why :

In current layout, we've tried to run at 800 x 600, my problem of this came
from the fact that the website is a mag to start with, not just a news site,
I leave this to Kenneth who does a wonderfull job at High Gear. Then the
basic reason is by running at 800 x 600, "my" section to provide articles had
only 470 pixel wide, that means , smaller fonts and worst tiny images that
goes with let's say a race story. Then if you transport this to people
running at 1280 x 1024 or even 1600 x 1200 (20% of the web viewers uses that
desktop rez now) or more, then these people wouldn't be able to read
properly. By the way by now 20% of web viewers are using 800 x 600 desktop.
it use to be at 25 at the start of 2000. There's a trend right now...

So now at 1024 x 768 desktop , I got 670 pixel wide for the articles section
(what's in the middle) and can properly size my fonts and images so it looks
super at 1024 x 768 and very well at 1280 x 1600 and ok at 1600 x 1200.

If people have a 17 inch monitor (kinda cheap these days), then I firmly
believe it's a sacrilege not to run at 1024 x 768 or more. I understand those
using a 14 or 15 inch monitor have to settle to 800 x 600, but for the
rest....

Some people will say : "if I change my desktop to 1024 x 768 with my 17 inch
monitor, then my dektop icons and the fonts are too tiny.." Well it's so ez
to resize these in display properties under control panel.

Stephen, the reasons are simple : articles sizing and the trend that started
2 years ago with cheaper 17" monitor that 1024 x 768 or higher rez are now
the norm. From last year stats (can't speak to other website stats) those
running 1024 or more now are at 75% or more of the "internet population".

If I "settled" for 800 x 600, with this current trend, then the website look
would be obsolete in 12-18 months, and would have need to redo again. That's
a personal
prediction i'm doing. I would have the same problem with people running at
1600 x 1200 or more in a short run.

Last note, with current graphics accelerator on the market, apart the monitor
size, there's no reason to give 1024 x 768 a try.

take care

Eric

> Jeez, Eric, I don't know the first thing about site design, but the first
> thing I noticed about yer new design is that SRM is no longer sized to
> fit--I have to scroll sideways all over the page to read from one line to
> the next.? Is that what you had in mind?

> --Steve Smith

> > Hi all, been the most hectic days (past 10 days) I've been through for
> > quite some time, gee I never thought it would mean such a huge amount
> > of work involved just to convert the old one to the new design...

> > It's not over yet, so far I've converted back to the month of March
> > 2000, only that the previous survey results are not done yet.

> > Please welcome Phillipe Beaudoin has the new co-webmaster, in charge of
> > the design :)

> > take care all

> > Eric

> > http://www.simracingmag.com (or this URL, please see the difference at
> > the extension) http://simracingmag.gameloft.com/index.shtml

by **Thomas Heinema** » Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:36:45

I really do like the new look allot! Thanks for providing us with
sim stuff. :)

Thomas Heineman

by **Stephen Smit** » Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:26:27

Eric,

Thx for yer long & thoughtful reply.

I have a 19-in. monitor for my Net 'puta, running 1024x768, but I still have
to scroll sideways to read complete lines in SRM. If I had to vote, I'd
prefer to click on an image I wanted to see full-size rather than having to
mouse around to read text. I mean, it's not as if you're only publishing
"all the news that's fit to print;" yer race report on Kyalami ran to 5
pages! (I liked the story, BTW)

--Steve

> Stephen, this was a hard choice but we decided to now run in 1024 x 768
> instead of 800 x 600. I'll explain why :

> In current layout, we've tried to run at 800 x 600, my problem of this
came
> from the fact that the website is a mag to start with, not just a news
site,
> I leave this to Kenneth who does a wonderfull job at High Gear. Then the
> basic reason is by running at 800 x 600, "my" section to provide articles
had
> only 470 pixel wide, that means , smaller fonts and worst tiny images that
> goes with let's say a race story. Then if you transport this to people
> running at 1280 x 1024 or even 1600 x 1200 (20% of the web viewers uses
that
> desktop rez now) or more, then these people wouldn't be able to read
> properly. By the way by now 20% of web viewers are using 800 x 600
desktop.
> it use to be at 25 at the start of 2000. There's a trend right now...

> So now at 1024 x 768 desktop , I got 670 pixel wide for the articles
section
> (what's in the middle) and can properly size my fonts and images so it
looks
> super at 1024 x 768 and very well at 1280 x 1600 and ok at 1600 x 1200.

> If people have a 17 inch monitor (kinda cheap these days), then I firmly
> believe it's a sacrilege not to run at 1024 x 768 or more. I understand
those
> using a 14 or 15 inch monitor have to settle to 800 x 600, but for the
> rest....

> Some people will say : "if I change my desktop to 1024 x 768 with my 17
inch
> monitor, then my dektop icons and the fonts are too tiny.." Well it's so
ez
> to resize these in display properties under control panel.

> Stephen, the reasons are simple : articles sizing and the trend that
started
> 2 years ago with cheaper 17" monitor that 1024 x 768 or higher rez are now
> the norm. From last year stats (can't speak to other website stats) those
> running 1024 or more now are at 75% or more of the "internet population".

> If I "settled" for 800 x 600, with this current trend, then the website
look
> would be obsolete in 12-18 months, and would have need to redo again.
That's
> a personal
> prediction i'm doing. I would have the same problem with people running at
> 1600 x 1200 or more in a short run.

> Last note, with current graphics accelerator on the market, apart the
monitor
> size, there's no reason to give 1024 x 768 a try.

> take care

> Eric

> > Jeez, Eric, I don't know the first thing about site design, but the
first
> > thing I noticed about yer new design is that SRM is no longer sized to
> > fit--I have to scroll sideways all over the page to read from one line
to
> > the next. Is that what you had in mind?

> > --Steve Smith

> > > Hi all, been the most hectic days (past 10 days) I've been through for
> > > quite some time, gee I never thought it would mean such a huge amount
> > > of work involved just to convert the old one to the new design...

> > > It's not over yet, so far I've converted back to the month of March
> > > 2000, only that the previous survey results are not done yet.

> > > Please welcome Phillipe Beaudoin has the new co-webmaster, in charge
of
> > > the design :)

> > > take care all

> > > Eric

> > > http://www.simracingmag.com (or this URL, please see the difference at
> > > the extension) http://simracingmag.gameloft.com/index.shtml

by **Eric Cot** » Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:17:33

Stephen, i'm puzzled and want to fix it... what browser and version ur using ???

I'm running at 1024 x 768, and np with Netscape 4.7, IE 5.0 and now IE 5.5

can you estimate the width it takes ?? maybe a screenshot of that page would
help ?

is it happenning on single and every pages (would make my life easier to find)

Eric

> Eric,

> Thx for yer long & thoughtful reply.

> I have a 19-in. monitor for my Net 'puta, running 1024x768, but I still have
> to scroll sideways to read complete lines in SRM.? If I had to vote, I'd
> prefer to click on an image I wanted to see full-size rather than having to
> mouse around to read text.? I mean, it's not as if you're only publishing
> "all the news that's fit to print;" yer race report on Kyalami ran to 5
> pages!? (I liked the story, BTW)

> --Steve

> > Stephen, this was a hard choice but we decided to now run in 1024 x 768
> > instead of 800 x 600. I'll explain why :

> > In current layout, we've tried to run at 800 x 600, my problem of this
> came
> > from the fact that the website is a mag to start with, not just a news
> site,
> > I leave this to Kenneth who does a wonderfull job at High Gear. Then the
> > basic reason is by running at 800 x 600, "my" section to provide articles
> had
> > only 470 pixel wide, that means , smaller fonts and worst tiny images that
> > goes with let's say a race story. Then if you transport this to people
> > running at 1280 x 1024 or even 1600 x 1200 (20% of the web viewers uses
> that
> > desktop rez now) or more, then these people wouldn't be able to read
> > properly. By the way by now 20% of web viewers are using 800 x 600
> desktop.
> > it use to be at 25 at the start of 2000. There's a trend right now...

> > So now at 1024 x 768 desktop , I got 670 pixel wide for the articles
> section
> > (what's in the middle) and can properly size my fonts and images so it
> looks
> > super at 1024 x 768 and very well at 1280 x 1600 and ok at 1600 x 1200.

> > If people have a 17 inch monitor (kinda cheap these days), then I firmly
> > believe it's a sacrilege not to run at 1024 x 768 or more. I understand
> those
> > using a 14 or 15 inch monitor have to settle to 800 x 600, but for the
> > rest....

> > Some people will say : "if I change my desktop to 1024 x 768 with my 17
> inch
> > monitor, then my dektop icons and the fonts are too tiny.." Well it's so
> ez
> > to resize these in display properties under control panel.

> > Stephen, the reasons are simple : articles sizing and the trend that
> started
> > 2 years ago with cheaper 17" monitor that 1024 x 768 or higher rez are now
> > the norm. From last year stats (can't speak to other website stats) those
> > running 1024 or more now are at 75% or more of the "internet population".

> > If I "settled" for 800 x 600, with this current trend, then the website
> look
> > would be obsolete in 12-18 months, and would have need to redo again.
> That's
> > a personal
> > prediction i'm doing. I would have the same problem with people running at
> > 1600 x 1200 or more in a short run.

> > Last note, with current graphics accelerator on the market, apart the
> monitor
> > size, there's no reason to give 1024 x 768 a try.

> > take care

> > Eric

> > > Jeez, Eric, I don't know the first thing about site design, but the
> first
> > > thing I noticed about yer new design is that SRM is no longer sized to
> > > fit--I have to scroll sideways all over the page to read from one line
> to
> > > the next. Is that what you had in mind?

> > > --Steve Smith

> > > > Hi all, been the most hectic days (past 10 days) I've been through for
> > > > quite some time, gee I never thought it would mean such a huge amount
> > > > of work involved just to convert the old one to the new design...

> > > > It's not over yet, so far I've converted back to the month of March
> > > > 2000, only that the previous survey results are not done yet.

> > > > Please welcome Phillipe Beaudoin has the new co-webmaster, in charge
> of
> > > > the design :)

> > > > take care all

> > > > Eric

> > > > http://www.simracingmag.com (or this URL, please see the difference at
> > > > the extension) http://simracingmag.gameloft.com/index.shtml

by **Eric Cot** » Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:35:18

Stephen, I just tried something, any better now ????