Forum:Fixed width or not

Currently, Porter21 has made the width of the wiki fixed based on pre-Oasis vote, in which we have decided to make it fixed. However, I think now that we have moved it's a good time to discuss it again. Do we want it to stay fixed or fluid? And what should the width be? Personally, while I am not opposed to fixed width, and I like the fact that it is now wider than the width of a content page at Wikia, I would probably prefer if it was a bit wider, e.g. 1000px like Wikia main pages and portals. What do you guys think? Even if we decide to make the width fluid, fixed width will be available as a gadget in the preferences, as fluid width is now. Ausir 16:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the wider the better. It would be nice for it to be wide enough for weapon comparision tables and the like to fit alongside the infoboxes rather than being pushed beneath them.--The Gunny 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With fixed width you have to make sure that not too many people have to scroll vertically as that's something visitors find extremely annoying. The currently chosen width is one which works with all currently common screen resolutions and making it any wider will result in vertical scrollbars for a substantial amount of people (1024*768 is the common reference point for a resolution that should be supported currently as it's still used by roughly ~10% of people). So I'm not in favour in using a higher fixed width.
 * Regarding fixed vs fluid width, I'm on the "fixed width" side of the argument. It makes it easier to create consistent layouts and frankly I don't miss things like having to clean up tables someone with a widescreen resolution set up while forgetting how much it'd be squeezed for people with lower screen resolutions. I've added a gadget for people who prefer a fluid width for their viewing experience this morning, by the way. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just checked it out on 1024x768. I see what you mean.  I guess that boils the question down to two parts:  What level of screen resolution should the site be maximized for and are the potential problems with layouts worth going to fluid width?  I would agree that fixed width seems to be prudent for layout consistancy, but I wouldn't neccessarily optimize the width for ~10% of potential users.  I would posit that those who regularly browse the internet at those resolutions are probably pretty well used to having to side scroll at many sites.  Put me down for fixed width that is optimized for a 1280 screen size.  How many px wide will that give us?--The Gunny 17:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't subscribe to the assumption that people with a 1024*768 resolution are used to scrollbars - 1024*768 is the resolution pretty much all modern fixed-width layouts are optimized for. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just using your numbers, as I have no expertiese in this. My main point stands: Should the width be optimized for ~10% of potential users?--The Gunny 17:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For me (and most other web designers) 10% is indeed a large enough number. With your argumentation you could also drop 1280*1024 - after all, it's only another 15% of users, right?
 * Don't mean to sound aggressive - you're entitled to your opinion - but I don't consider dropping support for 1024*768 to be a good idea at this time. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, 25% is quite a bit more than 10%, but I'd have to defer to your knowledge. This ain't my field.  If fixed page width is tied to common screen resolution, and a threshold of 10% is the norm, then there's not much left to discuss it seems,  other than fixed/floating?  Still, my opinion is optimize for 1280 and fixed. --The Gunny 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, if you want to make the width wider for yourself, you can always modify it in the personal CSS file. Ausir 17:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh the standard width argument, I have had this discussion on other sites before. I am fully on the side of Porter here for not only having it fixed, but also at what size. Plus the current industry standard is 1024 px for a reason. Additionally, I would like to point out that Porter source is fundamentally flawed, W3 statistics are based on there own harvesting of data. Since that site is geared toward the more tech savvy internet user, it is more likely to be visited by those with higher spec rigs. If you look around at other statistical sources you will notice this variance, also that W3 generally reports the lowest figure for 1024x768 usage. For example, the next hit on a Google search reports a user percentage of just under 20%. Or the source used by Wikipedia on the subject reports over 22% and sources its info from over 3 million websites. This screen size then represent a far larger share of readers and contributors than we can ignore or alienate. So thumbs up for 1024px (now that the footer has been fixed) User Avatar talk.png 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right, the numbers vary depending on target audience - I just randomly grabbed some credible source to back up my claims. I recall that in the discussions surrounding the release of Oasis, some Wikia staff member mentioned that the percentage of 1024*768 users for The Vault in particular was somewhere in the low 10s, but I couldn't be bothered to dig up that post :P -- Porter21 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some numbers pulled from google analytics today regarding the resolutions you guys are using to view The Vault. I thought it might be helpful to you to have some actual numbers:
 * {|style="border: 1px solid black;" rules="all"

! Resolution (width) ! Percentage
 * 311 - 480 (mobile users)
 * 5.52%
 * 768 - 1024
 * 10.97%
 * 1025-1599
 * 52.02%
 * 1600-1919
 * 13.78%
 * 1920+
 * 15.53%
 * }
 * Top 97.82% resolutions reported.
 * 1920+
 * 15.53%
 * }
 * Top 97.82% resolutions reported.
 * Top 97.82% resolutions reported.


 * Hope that helps! --Wynthyst 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the numbers :) -- Porter21 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Haven't read the wall of text above, but I am all for non-fixed width, with the option to have it fixed (or the other way around). Especially on my new monitor, The Vault now looks very small, crowded and hard to read to me and I really wish I could get it wider. --Mr.Lexx 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you go to the "Gadgets" tab of your preferences you can turn off the fixed width (second gadget in the "site appearance" section). -- Porter21 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I've looked for something like that already but couldn't fit anything (template related, etc). Though, I checked the box now, but the width didn't changed, even after reloading the page a few times. Anything else I've missed?--Mr.Lexx 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies - the gadget wasn't working properly. Should be fixed now. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, works now. Thanks!--Mr.Lexx 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the global wrapper div be set to 1012 px at minimum (currently 1000px), this allows for perfect fit of 5 gallery images per row. At the moment it is bumping the fifth one down and wasting a large portion of unused space (see example: Super mutant). User Avatar talk.png 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but then you get horizontal scrollbars in 1024*768. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tweaked the CSS for the galleries a bit instead; 5 images should now fit into one row. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking of that for a fix as well. I was going to have a play around after finishing work, but I see now that it has already been done. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)