but dont' understand why. The longer the thread is, the wider it gets. The short threads are fine - just the long ones go way over to the right. Does anybody else see this?

The pics in that thread made it wider. My res is at 1280 x 960 and its fine....

the tables are not sized correctly....that starts with the new "logo"...with the uptop ad you have to scroll right to see the number of members online, and the time, and, how long you've been on. and, it runs through the whole of this place. someone needs to resize the tables and to CHANGE the FRIKKEN color code of "visited links". whoever designed this "new" rosity did not take into account the fact that folks may have all different sized monitors, and, different versions of browsers. it is most definitely not anywhere close to "industry standard". and, yes, one of the ways that i add a little coin to my pocket is web design. been doing it since '96. i am sure i am not the only one hereabouts who could fix this. but, i have made it a policy..like so many of y'all...not to do ANY work for free. my eyes are very tired. this is cheeseball to the max.

I prefer the term "Cheesecake" to describe the mess - although pinup artists might object though :o)

The site was re-designed for 1024 x 768 resolution. This decision was based upon the fact that we conducted a poll several months back and this resolution accounted for the overwhelming majority. As for different browser versions, the new layout was tested for IE versions 5-6, Netscape Versions 4.7, 4.8, 6.2 & 7.0, & Opera versions 6-7. All browsers tested satisfactorily at 1024 x 768. If there is a problem with horizontal scrolling it is most likely due to an image being posted that would cause the layout to exceed 1024 pixels in width (which was the situation mentioned in the beginning of this thread) or using a resolution smaller that 1024 x 768. I'm sure it's not as if many of you never had to scroll in some situations before. I typically use a 1280 x 1024 resolution and have had to scroll horizontally many times for images that caused the layout to exceed it's designed specifications long before the new site design was implemented. By the way, you CAN select your own choice of link color as well as visited link color. This was implemented early this morning.

"...By the way, you CAN select your own choice of link color as well as visited link color. This was implemented early this morning..." And what of new visitors then tutone1234? Do each and every one of them need to be assaulted by the colors and put through this? For shame!

It's not the image issue Tommy. We're smart enough to know that an image posted in a thread makes us have to scroll. I'm not sure about everyone else but when I say I use 1024x768 that doesn't mean I use my browser full screen. See, when I use IE I like to leave my favorites list open over there on the left. I also have my task bar on the left side of the screen so that takes up a little bit of space too. It's silly to design it for a full 1024 wide.

tutone 1234: " The site was re-designed for 1024 x 768 resolution." Are you nuts? Sorry but designing for 1024 means that you have to have a window display > 1024 (due to window ornamentation). I do (1280) but why would I run a browser FULL-SCREEN? But how many laptops do? But more importantly, computer interface design - and heck, even 19th century newspaper design - has long held that humans have greater problems reading the longer the line length! It's hard to track on one line all the way across. That's why newspapers have columns! Newspaper columns. It's worse on a computer screen than it is on a page for a whole bunch of reasons. But you've made it wider than any book. So you've designed a FORUM to be harder to reader quickly, easily, rapidly and accurately. Yeesh! Even if you had a NEED to make it 1024 wide, you wouldn't make the text column part 800+ wide. If you look at other popular Forum software out there you'll find most hover around 800 wide, but the actual text column area is much, much smaller - in the 450 - 550 range mostly, some even less than that. I still can't believe that quote. It was a joke, right???? It has to be a joke! Odd sense of humour though...... So the header overhanging the right side of the right menu bar was presumably intended too.

Meaning that it was designed for 1024, or any other resolution, also means that you do account for the right hand scroll bar and any other objects that are going to take away from the available real estate you have to work with. It wasn't like we didn't look at several factors before making the decision to focus the layout towards a 1024 x 768 resolution. As I mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of Renderosity members use at least 1024 x 768. In addition, there are over 179,000 gallery images that would cause you to scroll horizontally at 800 x 600. That accounts for 67% of all gallery images. The galleries account for the majority of our site traffic and bandwidth. Based upon the poll and the gallery images, it was an obvious decision to increase the resolution.

{The site was re-designed for 1024 x 768 resolution. This decision was based upon the fact that we conducted a poll several months back and this resolution accounted for the overwhelming majority. } And when was this "poll" taken? The same time that Poser 5 forced everyone to use 1024x768 screen sizes? Like the poster above, I too use IE in "windowsd" form, which is much less my 1024x768 screen. It's 2003- you would think that people would figure out how to make resizable HTML tables by now. Web pages should look fine on ANY resolution. Forcing people to use ONE resolution is stupid... but, if the "web designer" here (and I use the term really loosely) has just finished his or her college degree, then I suppose we could cut them a little slack. However, I think we should stop complaining and remember that this is Renderosity: they make changes based on what's best for them, and worry about the users after the change is done.

Why not make it at least collapsible? On another note: Why wouldn't you browse at full window? I have to agree that is a bad decision for any web designer to make. If you are going to use table layouts they need to be fluid - period.

I don't browse with a full sized window. I have a very high screen res (1600x1200), but even when I used a lower res I still tended to keep my browser window a bit smaller. I do that because I normally have other things running at the same time, and it's bood to be able to, say, watch the way a render is proceeding while I type a message in a forum (which I'm doing right now). At least they didn't use that incredibly obnoxious JavaScript that forces your browser to full size. ;) Still, it's possible to optimize a site for a higher res while still allowing it to degrade gracefully to lower ones, particularly in the forum area. bonni bonni

In this case (the forum formatting), I can sympathize with Rosity on having difficulty fixing this, because it's really a browser issue and not a coding/display issue. I was looking at their code and they do not use exact addressing, but percentages which the browser is then responsible for figuring out what that means based on the window size. This should work and collapse for almost all browsers at whatever resolution.

However, what breaks this is not code on Rosity's part, but the browser not being able to handle long URL's (except ones with a ?) because of the lack of spaces (that the browsers use for the line break). If a post has such a long URL without spaces (or any other long text without spaces), it will refuse to make it two lines, thus having to widen the table size. Same thing, of course, is true with images.

Yes, there is a solution that could be implemented, but would people like it is the question if Rosity was to do it. That would involve limiting the image post sizes to 640x480 or something like that, and then having code that does the formatting themselves (usually cutting off the end of the URL and replacing it with ... for display) while still allow the working link. Such code would slow down the system as it would have to analyze every post to see if there was an offending URL line.

Given the audience and the information they have to work with, this is probably the way to handle it. Besides, this is one thing that didn't change in the new layout. It's always done this because the browser has always had this issue.

My 2c

Well, no offense, but I think that designing it for 1024x768 was just plain ridiculous, not to mention a violation of the standard. There's a reason why 99.9% of web pages are designed for 800x600. Try this: Set your screen resolution for 800x600 and surf the site for a while and see what a pain in the ass it is.

MikeJ, You mean TEST it? :-) ShadowWind, I understand and agree with you up to a point, it is tricky, but... it was working correctly at 800x600 up until 2 days ago, so something was changed - intentionally or otherwise. So I don't see why it couldn't be changed back.

I was only referring to the forum tables, which do work in 800x600. I tried them at that resolution and they worked fine for me in IE, except as I noted with a thread with a picture and/or long url, which Rosity has always had trouble with (and most sites do) since I've been here. Not arguing the rest of the problems that 800x600 people are having though, like the title bar (which doesn't really fit in 1024x768 either).