SIM RACING MAG : back online :)

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

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 Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> 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 >

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 Stephen Smith wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> 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 > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > >

I really do like the new look allot! Thanks for providing us with sim stuff. :) Thomas Heineman "Eric Cote" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> 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 >

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 Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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 thiscame > from the fact that the website is a mag to start with, not just a newssite, > 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 articleshad > 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 usesthat > 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 600desktop. > 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 articlessection > (what's in the middle) and can properly size my fonts and images so itlooks > 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 understandthose > 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 17inch > monitor, then my dektop icons and the fonts are too tiny.." Well it's soez > to resize these in display properties under control panel. > > Stephen, the reasons are simple : articles sizing and the trend thatstarted > 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 websitelook > 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 themonitor

Quoted text (9 lines)

> size, there's no reason to give 1024 x 768 a try. > > take care > > Eric > > Stephen Smith wrote: > > > 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 lineto

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > the next. Is that what you had in mind? > > > > --Steve Smith > > > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > 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 > > > >

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 Stephen Smith wrote:

Quoted text (106 lines)

> 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 > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > Stephen Smith wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > 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 > > > > > >

Stephen, I just tried something, any better now ???? Eric Stephen Smith wrote:

Quoted text (106 lines)

> 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 > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > Stephen Smith wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > 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 > > > > > >

Eric, Never, *ever* take me seriously! I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. I know *nothing* about computers. I shoot from the hip and (occasionally) hit targets by accident, not marksmanship. I'm sure yer site is fine. If there's anything wrong, I'm sure it's on my end. Well, *almost* sure.... --Steve P.S. My browser is IE5.5. Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Stephen, i'm puzzled and want to fix it... what browser and version urusing ??? > > 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 pagewould > help ? > > is it happenning on single and every pages (would make my life easier tofind) > > Eric >

hehe, common Stephen you're better than what you say... is it fixed now ?? I made a small mod... just hit the refresh button on your browser.... and what browser is it Internet Explorer or ?? Stephen Smith wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Eric, > > Never, *ever* take me seriously!� I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm > talking about.� I know *nothing* about computers.� I shoot from the hip and > (occasionally) hit targets by accident, not marksmanship.� I'm sure yer site > is fine.� If there's anything wrong, I'm sure it's on my end.� Well, > *almost* sure.... > > --Steve > > P.S. My browser is IE5.5. > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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, Seems to be working perfectly now. Thanks for your prompt and satisfying response. --Steve Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Stephen, I just tried something, any better now ???? > > Eric > > Stephen Smith wrote: > > > 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 havingto

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 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 > > > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Stephen, this was a hard choice but we decided to now run in 1024 x

768

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > 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 providearticles > > had > > > only 470 pixel wide, that means , smaller fonts and worst tiny imagesthat > > > 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 viewersuses

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > 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 Ifirmly > > > believe it's a sacrilege not to run at 1024 x 768 or more. Iunderstand > > 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 my17 > > inch > > > monitor, then my dektop icons and the fonts are too tiny.." Well it'sso > > 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 arenow > > > 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 "internetpopulation". > > > > > > If I "settled" for 800 x 600, with this current trend, then thewebsite > > 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 peoplerunning at

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > 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 > > > > > > Stephen Smith wrote: > > > > > > > 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 oneline

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > to > > > > the next. Is that what you had in mind? > > > > > > > > --Steve Smith > > > > > > > > Eric Cote <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > 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 hugeamount > > > > > 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 ofMarch > > > > > 2000, only that the previous survey results are not done yet. > > > > > > > > > > Please welcome Phillipe Beaudoin has the new co-webmaster, incharge

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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 > > > > > > > > > >