GoM Website

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

Marten: The header of the GoMe site is exactly 1024px wide. The reason you see the border is because the default style on the page body is forcing a margin of 8px, and leaving the border visible on the left and top. There is also a 1px black border around the centered wrapper.

The 100% wide layout solves this as well as allowing for wider resolutions without showing any edges. The width of the header image represents the minimum width for the site. If you were to use an extended, larger header, then it would be shifted right for anyone viewing at less than that width. I personally find a repeating background more interesting than solid blue.

Anyway, to that end, I went a little beyond pure css edits, and 'shopped up a new background image to match the new header image. Same for the "fancypic". Now it will not repeat the full title at any resolution. Any better?

the modification now includes 4 images, and 2 modifications to the html file, not including the added css link.

Lynnutte · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:51 pm

Ok. From a purely "haven't a clue how you guys are doing this" perspective. With all these changes you guys are making on the website, I haven't noticed anything different. Maybe I'm just not observant enough. Which is good, because I liked/like the website as is/was. :lol:

Just my 2 cents worth.

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

I'm not making any changes to the website at all.

I made a copy of it and modified that. You can view it here: http://uruexploration.googlepages.com/index_fix_2.htm

Marten · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:23 pm

Nadnerb wrote:

Marten: The header of the GoMe site is exactly 1024px wide. The reason you see the border is because the default style on the page body is forcing a margin of 8px, and leaving the border visible on the left and top. There is also a 1px black border around the centered wrapper.

Right, and that is a problem.

Quote:

The 100% wide layout solves this as well as allowing for wider resolutions without showing any edges. The width of the header image represents the minimum width for the site. If you were to use an extended, larger header, then it would be shifted right for anyone viewing at less than that width. I personally find a repeating background more interesting than solid blue.

Anyway, to that end, I went a little beyond pure css edits, and 'shopped up a new background image to match the new header image. Same for the "fancypic". Now it will not repeat the full title at any resolution. Any better?

the modification now includes 4 images, and 2 modifications to the html file, not including the added css link.

That is much better, and now I'm prepared to champion your cause and ask shimmerillion to adopt this

Shimmer, take a peek at Nadnerb's prototype now. It works much better (the changes are significant enough that he should have bumped it to index_fix_3.htm)!

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

Ok, heres how the design worked when I came up with it.

The texture strip at the top of the page (the grey and yellow texture, the grey navigation strip, the rock texture below that) was a tile, set on an x axis to repeat across the screen. The GoM logo and text was a center header element set as a background (the text would be actual text not an image).

The "content" the shadowed page effect would have been another background element set to the top of the content div. The triptych would be a single image used only for the main page).

I could probably come up with an idea that doesn't stretch across the entire screen, but it may be a few days as I'm rather busy at the moment.

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

Uhm. I really don't think anyone wants a page that doesn't stretch across the screen. They were just nitpicking the fact that I had repeated the entire header image rather that creating a new tile effect. (which I have now done, and is pretty close to what Tweek describes above)
[size=0]
Anyway, the original modification was meant more as a quick proof of concept in the hopes that someone, hopefully with access to the server, would finish the job. Evidently that doesn't fly here. Anyway, now that I've gone all the way, and completed the fix, Tweek is working on coding up a full version from scratch.

I suppose that's what I get for butting in and trying to fix other people's websites.
</emo>[/size]

veralun · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:03 pm

In whatever concept given above I have to sidescroll to see the complete page. (17 inch screen and 1025 x 768 res.)
So it would be nice if that fits exactly with or without navigationstrip or lines on the side.
But I know you guys will fix that. :wink:

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

Veralun wrote:

In whatever concept given above I have to sidescroll to see the complete page. (17 inch screen and 1025 x 768 res.)
So it would be nice if that fits exactly with or without navigationstrip or lines on the side.
But I know you guys will fix that. :wink:

Try it now.

shimmerillion · **Joined:** Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:28 pm **Posts:** 149

Nadnerb, thanks for creating that long image as well as looking at the CSS. That will help a bunch.

Thanks to everyone for your patience. I only have so much time, and it's most important (I think) that we get all the programming kinks ironed out before the start of the episode ... so that's what I've been working on. Getting the liquid layout fixed will just be icing on the cake, and I will get to it as soon as I can.

Tweek - as Nadnerb said, don't worry about a new design - but if you could get me those transparent icons, it would be fabulous!

Samsbase - I thought groups were just going to declare themselves affiliates. However, I have enough to do with just the site, so if you guys want to hash out a more complicated system, go ahead. Just tell me who to list and I'll list them.

veralun · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:52 pm

Sorry.
THIS is what I see.

Nadnerb · **Joined:** Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:02 am **Posts:** 590

Hmm.. IE7, huh? That does some funny things. (and I don't have it to test in)
Changed it again. Any better?

veralun · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:16 pm

Yeah IE 7.
It goes the right direction. :wink:

This is what I see now.

semplerfi · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:33 am

Veralun wrote:

Yeah IE 7.
It goes the right direction. :wink:

This is what I see now.

Your image is only 1024 wide. With the image being taller that 768 there will be vertical scroll bar on the right taking up window width in turn creating the horizonal scroll bar. i normal use 1000 to try and get around this issue.

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:11 am

Following on from semperfli, what are the root resolution and aspect ratio, 1024 * 768, 1280 * 960 (4 * 3) or 1280 * 1024 (5 * 4)?

shimmerillion · **Joined:** Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:28 pm **Posts:** 149

Hey everyone, I've updated the site with Nadnerb's CSS additions. I've tested it in Firefox, IE6, and IE7. It looks like the only remaining problem is the #topnav ul is not centered in IE. Does somebody mind to take a look? Thanks!

GoM Website

Who is online