no1 wrote:in addition to the "back to top" button, i wouldn't mind another list of links to forums at the bottom. you know, links to "woots," "world of woot," "contests," "side deals", "ebw."

If we're asking for buttons, I don't know if it's possible or not, but how about a "Go to Right" button at the top of the page so I wouldn't have to go down to the bottom horizontal scroll bar?

pooflady wrote:If we're asking for buttons, I don't know if it's possible or not, but how about a "Go to Right" button at the top of the page so I wouldn't have to go down to the bottom horizontal scroll bar?

There's an idea that Woot will no doubt like. Further clutter up the page rather than admit a design flaw & fix it.
We should see this "fix" tomorrow.

makoti wrote:There's an idea that Woot will no doubt like. Further clutter up the page rather than admit a design flaw & fix it.
We should see this "fix" tomorrow.

hold your breath... woot cares and listens... it will be mere moments before they fix it.

makoti wrote:There's an idea that Woot will no doubt like. Further clutter up the page rather than admit a design flaw & fix it.
We should see this "fix" tomorrow.

Speaking of fixes, how do we get to another member's profile? Searching doesn't seem to find the profile, only posts that a member has made. Most profiles (including mine) are pretty boring, but some of them were entertaining, and I miss being able to just click on the username and having it pop up the profile.

BTW, noticed the side deal is now in the same spot all across the site. Much better, thank you.

shrdlu wrote:Speaking of fixes, how do we get to another member's profile? Searching doesn't seem to find the profile, only posts that a member has made. Most profiles (including mine) are pretty boring, but some of them were entertaining, and I miss being able to just click on the username and having it pop up the profile.

BTW, noticed the side deal is now in the same spot all across the site. Much better, thank you.

i can has fixes?

unixrab wrote:i can has fixes?

Nope. Just me. No fixes for you.

shrdlu wrote:Nope. Just me. No fixes for you.

meh.

pooflady wrote:If we're asking for buttons, I don't know if it's possible or not, but how about a "Go to Right" button at the top of the page so I wouldn't have to go down to the bottom horizontal scroll bar?

The right arrow key works, but it's kind of slow (I'm a keyboard navigator due to my mainframe background). Also, you might try clicking the scroll wheel. Depending on the drivers, it might give you a four-way directional cursor that lets you simply drag the mouse right to scroll right.

But as far as I am aware, there is no way to add a link or button to a page to tell the browser to scroll right. At least if there is, I don't know how to do it. But in my Google searches, I did find this interesting article about why horizontal scrolling is bad:
http://www.howtonotmakemoneyonline.com/2009/01/why-horizontal-scrolling-is-bad.html

Edit: After weeding through lots of "scroll bar" false matches, I finally found that it is possible to reset the current window's left offset, effectively scrolling right.

Sonan wrote:But as far as I am aware, there is no way to add a link or button to a page to tell the browser to scroll right. At least if there is, I don't know how to do it.

Now you do ;) -- "jаvascript:scrollTo(pageYOffset,2000);"

(I don't know if that will work in all browsers, but it certainly works in FF.)

PS: If you do use that in your own production code, do NOT copy/paste it -- the wootfilter takes the "jаvascript" keyword and bitbuckets it, so, I had to do the ol' cheataround to get it to display. If you try using the cheated version in working code, it will break your code. In other words, just *type* "jаvascript" rather than copying it from the above.

BTW, if you want to verify if it will work in YOUR browser, you ought to be able to put that line (with a *real* "jаvascript" keyword) in your Address bar (*without* the quotes) and hit enter -- if your browser supports it, the page will instantly scroll all the way to the right (unless it's *super* "epic" in which case use a bigger number).

Sonan wrote:I did find this interesting article about why horizontal scrolling is bad:
http://www.howtonotmakemoneyonline.com/2009/01/why-horizontal-scrolling-is-bad.html

Wow!

Anyone who has NOT clicked on that link, go read it now!

The "What's so bad about Horizontal Scrolling?" article is MUST-read material!

kodachrome wrote:Wow!

Anyone who has NOT clicked on that link, go read it now!

The "What's so bad about Horizontal Scrolling?" article is MUST-read material!

Yeah... that is good info... but it's falling on deaf ears around here. For some reason, woot is married to the horizontal scrolling/wide-screen monitor position. to which I say...

kodachrome wrote:Now you do ;) -- "jаvascript:scrollTo(pageYOffset,2000);"

I'll see your fake 'а' and raise you an empty tag! Click reply to see how to write Javascript without using alternative character codes.

Also, I did eventually find this function, but the example code had browser checks wrapped around it, so it very well may only work in mozilla. I can at least tell you it did nothing in IE 6 (yes, I know... I have no choice)

kodachrome wrote:The "What's so bad about Horizontal Scrolling?" article is MUST-read material!

The domain name says it all.

Sonan wrote:The domain name says it all.

Do you think there is ANY chance that the Woot staff in charge of this change will actually read this & take it to heart?
Nah...me neither.

woot staff does not like mobile devices, small laptops, netbooks, internet tablets, net appliances....
idiots?

I love it! I think it is very clean looking but also visually appealing and has a better flow than the last design. I love this green!

makoti wrote:Do you think there is ANY chance that the Woot staff in charge of this change will actually read this & take it to heart?
Nah...me neither.

They used to... but they stopped. You will all submit to woot's design and function. the end.

makoti wrote:Do you think there is ANY chance that the Woot staff in charge of this change will actually read this & take it to heart?
Nah...me neither.

I read it, but didn't find a lot to comment on. I'll stretch to comment. I did find irony that it was published the day that our site launched

the guy's certainly logical - I can imagine little worse than a site accidentally a few pixels too wide.

This point was also noteworthy:

"For 5% of the visitors, it's just not worth the effort to redesign some sites to handle it. I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

although I hope he has that misphrased - not worth the effort to redesign? or too difficult to redesign? or too punishing to the 95% left? I certainly hope he's not just lazy.

Sonan wrote:I'll see your fake 'а' and raise you an empty tag! Click reply to see how to write Javascript without using alternative character codes.

I clicked reply, but alas, the reply-parser does not recurse quotes.

Edited: OK, I see what you did (I originally thought you'd edited my original JS statement, left in-place in the original quote block.)

Snapster wrote:I read it, but didn't find a lot to comment on. I'll stretch to comment. I did find irony that it was published the day that our site launched

the guy's certainly logical - I can imagine little worse than a site accidentally a few pixels too wide.

This point was also noteworthy:

"For 5% of the visitors, it's just not worth the effort to redesign some sites to handle it. I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

although I hope he has that misphrased - not worth the effort to redesign? or too difficult to redesign? or too punishing to the 95% left? I certainly hope he's not just lazy.

You need to "stretch" to comment?
What's the matter with you?

You are portraying yourself as so closed-minded that arguing the matter would appear futile.

Your site is not "accidentally" a few pixels too wide.
It is continuing to be deliberately too wide, despite overwhelming pleas from your customers to make it otherwise.

You are quite obviously single-minded on this issue.
Aside from inanely mocking his other comments, you ignored the most relevant comment he made: "I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

Snapster wrote:I read it, but didn't find a lot to comment on.

I was hoping for a comment on the following points, but in lieu of yours, I'll provide my own.

Horizontal scrolling is unusual - most sites don't have horizontal scrollbars so it's not natural for a visitor to scroll sideways.

One thing I can't stand about browsing sites on my phone is having to pan around to see everything, and now it's that way on Woot even from my desktop.

Horizontal scroll bars take up valuable space - In 1024x768 resolution (currently the most common) a horizontal scrollbar takes up about 1000x17 pixels. That's about the same amount of screen real estate as a half banner.

I just included this for the "most common" reference.

You need to capture your users attention fast - Your site visitor needs to make a decision about your site pretty quickly. Many times they don't even scroll down to see if there's anything interesting, expecting them to have to scroll down and sideways is too much for a site they don't have an opinion of yet. You want to make viewing your site as easy as possible.

Simple and clean sites are more appealing. The scrollbar adds clutter and definitely detracts from the first impression of the site.

People with high resolution monitors don't browse at full screen - I have a widescreen, high resolution monitor and I didn't get it because I like reading 20" long lines of text. I have a lot of programs going when I'm working and I have my browser set up to be 1024x768 in size. Sometimes narrower.

We have two widescreen laptop (1440x900 and 1920x1080), and under our normal browsing conditions, we have a horizontal scrollbar on Woot. Even when watching HD video on YouTube, they were nice enough to put the normal "side" content below the video to avoid the scrollbar.

And my personal favorite...

It just looks stupid

vegaboyz wrote:You need to "stretch" to comment?
What's the matter with you?

I'll rephrase. I read but didn't find the article worthy of comment when it was first posted. I was replying to a follow up request to address it's content. I went back and found a few things to comment on and prefaced those comments with an explanation.

vegaboyz wrote:
You are portraying yourself as so closed-minded that arguing the matter would appear futile.

I do have a solid opinion and am here to share information on some factors of the decision with a purpose of gathering intelligent feedback. As I stated early on, that there is a concern for our decisions is a great value. With the specific points, quantity and quality of this feedback unknown in advance of them, I would have to continue to describe myself open minded. I have addressed much of the feedback that I have found to be insightful while acknowledging that talk will do little to change opinion of those affected by browser size choice or hardware restraint. I continue to invest considerable time in this effort and I am comfortable with how this portrays Woot and myself as it's founder and CEO.

vegaboyz wrote:
Your site is not "accidentally" a few pixels too wide.

bingo. as I stated, that would be horrible and is largely what the guys article boils down to.

vegaboyz wrote:
It is continuing to be deliberately too wide, despite overwhelming pleas from your customers to make it otherwise.

I don't dismiss the fact that a number of woot members dislike the wideness "green eggs and spam" woot 3.0, though the number of people entirely noncommittal and the number of people growing to like it better are equally unknown. I have read every single post within this thread from day 1 and continue to check back here. In the future, we may offer automation to gather feedback in a more inclusive view of all wooters - ironically the wider front page will allow us to do this better.

vegaboyz wrote:
You are quite obviously single-minded on this issue.
Aside from inanely mocking his other comments, you ignored the most relevant comment he made: "I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

I disagree that I'm ignoring any relevant feedback and in fact I included that sentence in the quote I extracted specifically and intentionally - I am totally aligned with it.

Sonan wrote:I just included this for the "most common" reference.

see spreadsheet data posted, and some of my previous commentary on the more subjective points. it is conclusively not the most common resolution amongst woot users. even with sprawl of resolutions higher than it, 1280 is our most common. in fact it's also the resolution pool shrinking the fastest and most consistently - over 2% upgrading resolution on average for each of the last 36 months, with acceleration even under current economic conditions.

Snapster wrote:I disagree that I'm ignoring any relevant feedback and in fact I included that sentence in the quote I extracted specifically and intentionally - I am totally aligned with it.

As long as we have your attention, then...

It used to be, when I replied, that *all* of the post I was replying to was included in the quote. Now it's just the last paragraph (as you see in the quote above), which may or may not be the points I would want to respond to. Please consider restoring the more expected behavior.

Unlike some of my more strident complainers, I'm pretty content that most of the usability issues are addressed, often within a few hours of my mentioning them in this thread. The green was objectionable to me for readability. That was fixed long ago.

Sure, it's ugly. So were the other two designs. I never thought that Woot was going for beauty.

Life is change. That is how it differs from the rocks (John Wyndham, in Rebirth).

My monitor's resolution is 1600x1200; however, since I like to multitask, I browse the web in a window around only 1000 pixels wide. I've got a big monitor, Woot, and your site is s_t_i_l_l____t_o____w_i_d_e_.

shrdlu wrote:As long as we have your attention, then...

It used to be, when I replied, that *all* of the post I was replying to was included in the quote. Now it's just the last paragraph (as you see in the quote above), which may or may not be the points I would want to respond to. Please consider restoring the more expected behavior.

Unlike some of my more strident complainers, I'm pretty content that most of the usability issues are addressed, often within a few hours of my mentioning them in this thread. The green was objectionable to me for readability. That was fixed long ago.

Sure, it's ugly. So were the other two designs. I never thought that Woot was going for beauty.

Life is change. That is how it differs from the rocks (John Wyndham, in Rebirth).

I noted that myself but I think it's only when replying to a post with multiple manually done quote/replies in it - in fact it came up with nothing between the quotes when I did it just earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure that's a development bug but will have to explore it with the dev team to be sure it's not some feature attempt.

While the color is still not to my liking... The contrast seems much better - meaning I can read it better and the posts in the forums look better to me - so Thanks Woot for that. It was hard on the eyes at first.

Honestly, I could care less about the width - I never have my windows open at full width anyway so I always have to scroll.

I'm used to it now. I will look forward to the new content that you said will be added in the future that will use the extra width. until then, I'll just keep on wooting. Hopefully Woot 4.0 will be Blue - my favorite color! (hint hint) :-)

vegaboyz wrote:

You are quite obviously single-minded on this issue.
Aside from inanely mocking his other comments, you ignored the most relevant comment he made: "I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

Snapster wrote:I disagree that I'm ignoring any relevant feedback and in fact I included that sentence in the quote I extracted specifically and intentionally - I am totally aligned with it.

You're "totally aligned with it"?
Then why aren't you making sure your site is usable at the other resolution as well, which is exactly what he was recommending?

Honestly, Mr. Snapster, that point was so obvious that I don't understand why you elect to dance around it.

Snapster wrote:

Sonan wrote:I just included this for the "most common" reference.

see spreadsheet data posted, and some of my previous commentary on the more subjective points. it is conclusively not the most common resolution amongst woot users. even with sprawl of resolutions higher than it, 1280 is our most common. in fact it's also the resolution pool shrinking the fastest and most consistently - over 2% upgrading resolution on average for each of the last 36 months, with acceleration even under current economic conditions.

vegaboyz wrote:vegaboyz wrote:

You are quite obviously single-minded on this issue.
Aside from inanely mocking his other comments, you ignored the most relevant comment he made: "I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."



You're "totally aligned with it"?
Then why aren't you making sure your site is usable at the other resolution as well, which is exactly what he was recommending?

Honestly, Mr. Snapster, that point was so obvious that I don't understand why you elect to dance around it.

Yes, I/woot are totally aligned with the meaning of the authors quote. Please read the article for expanded context, paraphrased by me below:

[when designing a site wider than the resolution of some visitors, which I do when the percentage is low enough] "I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

bottom line what he's talking about is main elements are to the upper left and while a scroll bar exists, don't forget to design so lower resolution folks can see the main content.

like I originally suggested, this article content value doesn't offer much deep thought or researched facts worthy of an in-depth discussion - it's just mildly sensationalized semi-splog content for profit and authors enjoyment.

New design is great, no gripes. Only thing is the title attribute for the side deal item of the community navigation still says something about it being in the top right.

Sonan wrote:Of all the things I said in my post, this was the one I least cared for a reply to. Besides, it's not the size of your monitor that counts, but how much of it you want dedicated to web browsing.

I couldn't really find much else that hasn't been covered by me already. I've already said I don't default open my own browser big enough for woot 3.0 on my macbook. I'm one of you. I have to ignore content on the right or open my browser larger - depending on my session length I'll choose. Perhaps, if I do this a lot, I'll be eager for a more dense pixel laptop screen next time I upgrade.

I’ll expand on that. What’s good about highlighting usage patterns is that we can move the discussion to a higher level beyond just technology constraint. Technology limitations are not a factor to ignore, but I’m comfortable with my previous comments and the spreadsheet data showing woot’s unique visitor makeup and the consistent trend. For those that were around when the holy 640x480 and 800x600 constraints were challenged, discussing technology constraint is deja vu all over again (to quote Yogi).

So, at the higher level introduced when you talk about multitasking – not utilizing your full screen real estate for your browser – you get into philosophical territory. Your usage pattern currently is defined by content size of the sites you visit and that size is subject to challenge as Woot is doing. As technology matures, it’s reasonable to look around at offline comparisons for any analogies that fit. How much of your visual field of view is a newspaper? A magazine page? A book? A TV? Are ads a necessary factor or is content paid for? Is the medium streaming or static? Is the size designed for holding in your hand, sitting at a desk, or viewing from 10 feet? All platforms vary of course and some, like TV and computer monitor resolutions/size, are still evolving because technology has been the historical constraint. Looking at platforms that are technologically mature is interesting.

On computer screens, pixel density is evolving along with physical size. Presumably with computers as the eventual multi-use catch-all platform, there will be a fixed width web page standard much smaller than the actual screen size would allow. At current pixel density, for some users such as myself on my macbook, the technology capability is in an awkward stage. I have a large enough screen to multi-task but I'd perfer higher pixel density to make use of it better - sometimes I full screen my browser, other times I don't.

In my view, we’re not far off technology-wise from reaching terminal pixel density on desktop monitors - whatever the maximum density is that the human eye could see pixels at. I’m not exactly sure what this is but I’d guess the human eye could not distinguish more than 300 pixels per inch even with eyes moved closer to the screen – a level small screen lcd tech is already at. As we’re reaching this terminal density on desktop sized screens, the choices of how wide content is becomes long term relevant because the platform will be technologically mature.

A standard newspaper - plausibly comparable to use patterns and content ideals for desktop computing - is actually a pretty wide and dense platform with 5 or 6 columns each 300+ pixels wide each - I didn't google the exact resolution but I'd assume it to be close to 1600 wide resolution depending on pixel density of the printing and maybe 17 inches wide? Perhaps this is the width webpages would settle on. Magazines, another plausible web-like format, are even higher pixel density but smaller size – maybe 8 inches wide in content. It’s worth noting that both of these platforms are also the size they are to be portable and due to human hand size/eye distance comfort level reading patterns. It’s plausible that computer desktop monitors will be much larger in real-estate than both. It's also quite plausible that browsers will become transparent and web content will simply appear on the desktop in the size it was intended to.

If consumption ideals are not what you're talking about, I'd push to think long term what you are saying. If technology was no barrier, how much data do you want presented to you for your eyes to be able to scan before you have to scroll down. What platforms should the woot webpage optimize for? Should there be versions with less content to suit different desires?

TaeBoX wrote:New design is great, no gripes. Only thing is the title attribute for the side deal item of the community navigation still says something about it being in the top right.

ah right - thanks - we'll adjust

Snapster wrote:A standard newspaper - plausibly comparable to use patterns and content ideals for desktop computing

newspapers distribute the medium on which they are read, which is matched to the width of the format generated by their graphic designers, such that scrolling in two directions is unnecessary. i'm glad to see that you are going to follow the newspaper model, and look forward to woot soon distributing free hi-res monitors to the shipping addresses associated with each of the registered accounts on woot.

Snapster wrote:

A standard newspaper -

.... I can see the whole front page without scrolling horizontally.


Don't get me wrong, Matt.. I'm not digging on you... I appreciate your comments here and (as I have) following from comment 1, 35 pages ago... That's admirable.... especially for an executive level.

I think you've made yourself perfectly clear. You're not going to change the width... (my primary gripe) and you're not going to change the pukey-green color (a distant secondary gripe).

I won't adjust to the width. I won't adjust to the color. And you won't change them.


Just close this thread to future comments and open a new one for unintended features and bugs, missing buttons and whatnot. I am disenfranchised.

I don't understand one word in three on this page, but I take it I'm not going to get a "go to right" button at the top.

Snapster wrote:[discussing screen wi d th]...I'm one of you....

Well, to be fair, you're really not. You can tell them to change it back; that only holds for you. It obviously doesn't really bother you, or you'd change it. Still, something else you said really caught my attention.

Snapster wrote:......As technology matures, it’s reasonable to look around at offline comparisons for any analogies that fit. How much of your visual field of view is a newspaper? A magazine page? A book? A TV?

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Each of those things has a varying size, and it's seldom the comfort of the reader. There is a reason that paper in this country is 8 1/2 by 11, and the rest of the world uses 8 by 14 (commonly referred to as A4, or ISO A4). Much like the American insistence on clinging to inches, feet, pounds and quarts, when the rest of the world has moved to the metric system, we continue to use a paper size that's unique to this continent.

One of the reasons that columns in newspapers are the width they are is due to the capacity of the average reader (a capacity that continues to drop, sadly) in encompassing information provided by in a sentence. Many web sites are loaded with extraneous noise (some far worse than yours), and the ability of most to filter out this noise creates a vicious circle of ever increasing clutter as advertisers attempt to distract the user.

Snapster wrote:In my view, we’re not far off technology-wise from reaching terminal pixel density on desktop monitors - whatever the maximum density is that the human eye could see pixels at....As we’re reaching this terminal density on desktop sized screens, the choices of how wide content is becomes long term relevant because the platform will be technologically mature.

Here you miss the significant thing. If you're just speaking of the random clutter that seems best exemplified by nearly every local television web site I've ever seen, then sure, screen real estate is important. If you are genuinely trying to have a surface that draws the attention of viewers of the page, then you have lost site of the magic number of cognition (that would be 7, plus or minus 2).

Here's an example of a newspaper (nice of them to offer a snapshot of what one looks like):

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/

Note the width of the columns. Newspapers do not run across the page; they break cleanly at a boundary that allows the reader to digest concepts and information quickly. Perhaps your assumptions on the way people take in information will change over time.

Snapster wrote:A standard newspaper - plausibly comparable to use patterns and content ideals for desktop computing - is actually a pretty wide and dense platform with 5 or 6 columns each 300+ pixels wide each - I didn't google the exact resolution but I'd assume it to be close to 1600 wide resolution depending on pixel density of the printing and maybe 17 inches wide?...It’s worth noting that both of these platforms are also the size they are to be portable and due to human hand size/eye distance comfort level reading patterns...

Magazines vary in size, but larger ones are that size usually to accommodate advertisers, not for comfort of the reader. Newspapers have changed over the years as the readership has become more sophisticated, but are not much different now than the original broadsides published long ago. The column use was driven as much by the need to set type (look up Linotype and my username for entertainment) as it was for comfort.

It isn't the pixel density here that matters, it's the ability of the human brain to absorb information. What the front page looks like to me matters very little, other than during woot-offs, since I see it briefly, and then move on to something else. I doubt that's much different than most of your readership. Either it's something I want, and I buy it, or I ignore it. Once in a while I read the description (some of them are funny), but not as often as I used to, since most of it appears below the fold (in newspaper terms), and I'd rather read CircleID, or xkcd, or even First Monday.

So it goes.

Snapster wrote:A whole bunch of words

Do I win the prize for the longest reply from Snapster? Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I completely follow your reasoning still, especially when comparing web sites to printed media. I just want the scroll bar to go away. But you have your reasons, which appear to be something like trailblazing unchartered website width territory. Regardless, I'll live.

p.s. You might get kinder responses if your reply page wasn't such a bad influence on us, jerkface! ;)

Sonan wrote:Do I win the prize for the longest reply from Snapster? Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I completely follow your reasoning still, especially when comparing web sites to printed media. I just want the scroll bar to go away. But you have your reasons, which appear to be something like trailblazing unchartered website width territory. Regardless, I'll live.

p.s. You might get kinder responses if your reply page wasn't such a bad influence on us, jerkface! ;)

Thanks - I have enjoyed your input. I definitely accept that the trailblazing challenge is in us, but I want to assure that we did not seek to chase it here frivolously. There are many easier areas to attempt to trail blaze on that don't piss people off as much, such as selling one thing a day or adding funny stories to your sales pitch. This dilemma remains a tough one, and the level of response was by no means a surprise to us. As you can tell by my verbosity discussing future trends amongst what's now a small bitter audience, it's a topic that I am fully invested in and will continue to watch.

unixrab wrote:
I won't adjust to the width. I won't adjust to the color. And you won't change them.

For what it's worth, my previous post was an attempt to engage you in thought process and conversation on what an ideal web page width would be without technological barrier. Gazing to the future to help me understand your perspective now better. I also closed by suggesting a side topic of whether we should produce content more specifically for different platforms, if that's a more fruitful topic. (I prefer the former discussion, talking about ideal desktop use only)