Snapster wrote: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)

It's worth a great deal. The "ideal" web page, however is such a subjective subject as to be almost impossible to define. I certainly could define it for me, but I am just one wooter.

On a more personal note. Everyone picks one or two "online hangouts." woot was a major one of mine... browsing the blogs, reading the product descriptions, listening to the veggie-tale-esque podcasts.... RSS'ing each woot site, voting in derbies... finding wine bargins... posting a few hundred comments here and there. You were my homepage for cryingoutloud. Online hangouts come and go I suppose... I miss woot 2.0, the colors were a case study in brand recognition... your site spawned many imitators.... but they never came close. What happened in the 3.0 conversion was akin to coca cola abandoning red.

Further... from what I can see...what was done, was not asked for by anyone on the site that I could find... no one yelling for a wider site... no one complaining about the Broccoli and Carrots.... (with the exception of the few 1.0 holdouts... I did read them)

Woot looks pretty generic now. I'm not trying to be mean or petty. It just blends in to the myriad other sites. I can't see the far right of the page... and I don't bother.

Finally. I think the notion of platform-specific customizations is an exercise in futility. Linux is fragmented to hundreds of distros.. Windows 7 is going to be released in 7 different flavors. XP is still out there, Vista too... and ... multiply that by the desktop, laptop, mini-computer, and mobile phone iterations and it becomes silly.


Adding insult to injury... I bought an immersion blender yesterday from sellout.woot. I didn't blog on it, or participate in the discussion.. didn't read the funny description, or listen to the podcast.

So. I guess it doesn't matter how wide the screen is or how crappy the colors are. shopping @ woot is more like going to Wal-mart now. If I'm there.. .I'll check the sales.... but I won't be lining up for April 1st, woot's birthday, wootoffs or the like.


meh.



EDIT: Oh... and the additional sales tax is a kick in the teeth too.

unixrab wrote:It's worth a great deal. The "ideal" web page, however is such a subjective subject as to be almost impossible to define. I certainly could define it for me, but I am just one wooter.

On a more personal note. Everyone picks one or two "online hangouts." woot was a major one of mine... browsing the blogs, reading the product descriptions, listening to the veggie-tale-esque podcasts.... RSS'ing each woot site, voting in derbies... finding wine bargins... posting a few hundred comments here and there. You were my homepage for cryingoutloud. Online hangouts come and go I suppose... I miss woot 2.0, the colors were a case study in brand recognition... your site spawned many imitators.... but they never came close. What happened in the 3.0 conversion was akin to coca cola abandoning red.

Further... from what I can see...what was done, was not asked for by anyone on the site that I could find... no one yelling for a wider site... no one complaining about the Broccoli and Carrots.... (with the exception of the few 1.0 holdouts... I did read them)

Woot looks pretty generic now. I'm not trying to be mean or petty. It just blends in to the myriad other sites. I can't see the far right of the page... and I don't bother.

Finally. I think the notion of platform-specific customizations is an exercise in futility. Linux is fragmented to hundreds of distros.. Windows 7 is going to be released in 7 different flavors. XP is still out there, Vista too... and ... multiply that by the desktop, laptop, mini-computer, and mobile phone iterations and it becomes silly.


Adding insult to injury... I bought an immersion blender yesterday from sellout.woot. I didn't blog on it, or participate in the discussion.. didn't read the funny description, or listen to the podcast.

So. I guess it doesn't matter how wide the screen is or how crappy the colors are. shopping @ woot is more like going to Wal-mart now. If I'm there.. .I'll check the sales.... but I won't be lining up for April 1st, woot's birthday, wootoffs or the like.


meh.



EDIT: Oh... and the additional sales tax is a kick in the teeth too.

ditto to everything said here.

I am back to the site after a long break, partly because of personal stuff, and partly because I just can't stand to look at it. I'm definitely not spending as much time here as I used to. I'm tired of reading this thread, since none of the discussion really matters if the site is still going to look like this. It really does give me a headache to look at it, and I really don't care much about the reasoning behind it.

Less time at woot = fewer purchases from woot. It's that simple.

unixrab wrote:It's worth a great deal. The "ideal" web page, however is such a subjective subject as to be almost impossible to define. I certainly could define it for me, but I am just one wooter.

yes, that was my idea/request to gather further insight from individuals, as is all the feedback here. splitting what's possible based on current technological constraint and what might be the future idealistic design/consumption apart to see if webpage size is felt to be mature or still evolving.

imagine you have a 10,000 x 10,000 resolution 36" monitor in front of you in the future. What size is a webpage on it?

unixrab wrote:
EDIT: Oh... and the additional sales tax is a kick in the teeth too.

additional sales tax? I assume you mean the collection of sales tax starting last year on behalf of missouri residents? agreed, that stinks for us too.

Snapster wrote:
imagine you have a 10,000 x 10,000 resolution 36" monitor in front of you in the future. What size is a webpage on it?

Whatever size I want it to be. In my futuristic monitor world. When I resize my browser, the website auto-adjusts and senses the size so that I can see everything on the page, regardless of how I size the browser window. That's what Joel had on the SoL. ;)

Snapster wrote:
additional sales tax? I assume you mean the collection of sales tax starting last year on behalf of missouri residents? agreed, that stinks for us too.

yes. dammit.

unixrab wrote:Whatever size I want it to be. In my futuristic monitor world. When I resize my browser, the website auto-adjusts and senses the size so that I can see everything on the page, regardless of how I size the browser window.

Yep, good feature. Variable resolution on the fly within the browser window. From there, you may be further suggesting that content modules would rearrange themselves to fit your wider browser while still remaining appropriately sized for reading. All good for adjustment purposes to get what size you want. Now consider various types of content you view - specifically the type of web content that now requires vertical scrolling or page turning. What would be the ideal default content width that you'd settle on in pixels and inches in futuristic monitor world?

Some websites might assume with that level of screen real estate available that many of it's users would adjust their webpages to 1600+ pixels wide of content modules in maybe a 17" wide viewing area - perhaps whatever newspaper size and resolution are. Would this be uncomfortable? I don't know, it seems like it could be. I wouldn't want to be moving my body around, or even turning my head very much just to read a corner of the page - I'd want the field of view most comfortable for my eyes to scan with minimal effort before I scroll down or turn the page.

Essentially what I was pondering on yesterday was whether anyone was arguing that web pages in general (i.e. ones more narrow than woot) are already the ideal width and a mature platform, or if you think their width is due to current technology limitations of their readers. That is what I was asking for group opinion of.

Snapster wrote: That is what I was asking for group opinion of.

I had a big long reply.... .but. well..after I reread it... there were too many metaphors and analogies. I will sleep on it. I'm interested in others reply to this (one of your best) posts. I hope this gets bumped up in the blog.

unixrab wrote:I had a big long reply.... .but. well..after I reread it... there were too many metaphors and analogies. I will sleep on it. I'm interested in others reply to this (one of your best) posts. I hope this gets bumped up in the blog.

.... 18 hours later.....

meh.

Snapster wrote:Essentially what I was pondering on yesterday was whether anyone was arguing that web pages in general (i.e. ones more narrow than woot) are already the ideal width and a mature platform, or if you think their width is due to current technology limitations of their readers. That is what I was asking for group opinion of.

a little from column b, but not entirely; i think your dichotomy is not well chosen. i think the width is influenced both by historical limitations and by group consensus. the technology is no longer limited by 1024 px wide displays, but the convenience of using a common max width limit for different web pages drives the width now. use of a common/de facto width standard enables readers to avoid having to choose between frequent resizing of browser windows and horizontal scrolling.

trying to trailblaze a new width standard is like being a zit on a nose: sure you're out ahead of the rest of the face, but irritated people want to pop you.

no1 wrote:a little from column b, but not entirely; i think your dichotomy is not well chosen. i think the width is influenced both by historical limitations and by group consensus. the technology is no longer limited by 1024 px wide displays, but the convenience of using a common max width limit for different web pages drives the width now. use of a common/de facto width standard enables readers to avoid having to choose between frequent resizing of browser windows and horizontal scrolling.

trying to trailblaze a new width standard is like being a zit on a nose: sure you're out ahead of the rest of the face, but irritated people want to pop you.

this is a valid argument, for sure, and perhaps one to see if other people are aligned with. To rephrase, I believe you're saying that unlike 640x480 and 800x600 resolution barriers, which were designed beyond in maybe 1999 and 2004/5 respectively, the 1024x768 technological barrier will prove to be where width stops due to critical mass desire for a unified standard winning out over what's technically possible now/in the future or even what's visually preferable.

Snapster wrote:...(questioning) the 1024x768 technological barrier will prove to be where width stops due to...

I'm not sure it will stop there but I think it'll stick around at that width for a long time. You may be just too far ahead of the curve on this.

Interestingly, a friend of mine and fellow wooter, just got his first 16-9 widescreen monitor. Here's what he told me as I was trying to help him:

I think I actually prefer having my browser non-maximized, set up to a square-ish shape with open desktop on either side. Then I can have column-type applications (like IM apps) on the side and not blocking the browser.

Snapster wrote:this is a valid argument, for sure, and perhaps one to see if other people are aligned with. To rephrase, I believe you're saying that unlike 640x480 and 800x600 resolution barriers, which were designed beyond in maybe 1999 and 2004/5 respectively, the 1024x768 technological barrier will prove to be where width stops due to critical mass desire for a unified standard winning out over what's technically possible now/in the future or even what's visually preferable.

[ramble]
almost. i don't think it's necessarily going to dead end here. it may be more like a stop light than a dead end. but it's going to take a reason more compelling than the usual woot page content to get it moving (enlarging) again, something that would cause people to want to have more information shown at once in a single browser window. most or all of the woot content is fairly static stuff that people don't want to see all at once, they look at stuff sequentially instead, so a lot of horizontal real estate isn't really necessary.

pure speculation on stuff that could drive enlargement of the "standard:" perhaps multiple live feeds simultaneously streamed to different areas of the browser window. for example, multiple camera angles during the super bowl. or, during a wootoff, the main woot page and live chat with picture-posting capability, so people could monitor the items for sale while gawking at and gabbing about pics of lolcats or underage pole vaulters or whatever. but that might be limited by bandwidth.
[/ramble]

Snapster wrote:... To rephrase, I believe you're saying that ... the 1024x768 technological barrier will prove to be where width stops due to critical mass desire for a unified standard winning out over what's technically possible now/in the future or even what's visually preferable.

I would subscribe to that theory.

As uncomfortable as an overly wide window or horizontal scrollbar is (even if one never scrolls to see the advertisement that is now hidden off the right side), so too are other sites' pages that for whatever misguided reason have elected to place all of their content in a 500px column, centered on the window. All that white space is distracting, like a poorly cropped photo.

Now that we enjoy tabbed browsing nearly as a default, having each tab demand a competing form factor will make the least accommodating site seem to be begging to be voted off the island.

Now, where'd I stash that ancient tube of Clearasil?

I realize this thread is getting old and tired and not exactly the hotbed of conversation. It definitely makes sense that there is a perception of "why-bother because we won't change". Basically I want to reiterate that I continue to appreciate the participation and insight offered while respecting those who don't bother. There are a lot of factors that went into this decision that would not be on the table and transparent without this discussion. I hope that by my participation here I can at least shorten the gap of understanding to that of less distance.

sciotosurfer, no1 and gwp voice a similar perspective. Since I also agree that web development will not stop indefinitely at 1024 width, perhaps we should mark this in the discussion and beg the assumption that it's a broadly agreed exclusion. It's definitely ok to still feel that Woot is wrong on it's width, but speak up if you want to be on record that 1024-max web design is the mature standard essentially forever.

Moving from that, I would attempt to organize elements of width-decision-dissatisfaction as follows:

1. Today's technological limitations are compelling enough to stop Woot's width expansion:
a. Out of consideration for Woot's audience with 1024 max displays
b. Out of consideration for Woot's audience with >1024 displays that are still not large enough to display Woot @ 1080-wide and sidebar widgets while they browse.

gwp and no1 agree on a secondary factor - that of unification of standard. Basically describing the desire for unified standard and either which sort of site should push the envelope or some process that all of them should do it at once. I have written that element out a few times, but when I assess it stand-alone, it's not at the same level as 1a and 1b - it still flowed back to the above technology limit audience concerns and timing as the real underlying factor. (IF the assumption that "1024-max is not the ideal width forever" is also agreed upon, then there must be change from it allowed someday to evolve.)

If some or all of your dissatisfaction cannot be ultimately boiled down to element 1a or 1b, let me know what it is. Perhaps I'm wrong to throw out "standards unification" with the "1024 is perfect forever" bathwater.

----

If we're able to define dislike of decision due to the existence of these two technology limited audience pools, then there really are two next steps to clarify futher. First is defining the size and momentum of these audience pools and second is defining to what extent they are harmed.

Element 1a is relatively known and has been shared, along with comparison of woot versus reported worldwide internet. Here's an updated version of the google doc I published a few weeks ago: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pXSnuTqRzXAGsEQfzsiB7Bw

Unfortunately, element 1b is a beast. It's the largest unknown and the most variable as future sidebar widgets and use patterns are always changing and defining what resolution is necessary at any given use pattern is quite difficult. The only way to judge the pool size of woot's audience here is going to be by user polling - something I hinted earlier that our expanded width should ironically allow us to accomplish on the front page. Even then it's not going to be scientific at all and this will remain the best "unknown factor" to beat us over the head with. Yes, there is a business case to counter with, but I'll wait until I'm hit on the head to make it.

Harm done to users of these pools is certainly subjective, but at least it's pretty tangible to frame the issue. Users with browser windows open to allow less than 1080 pixels of web page content to display will have a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of their browser. The third column on the lower half of the page and the discussion highlights on the top require scrolling to see fully.

Snapster,

Just curious. How did 1080 become the magic number. It seems odd to risk this for an extra 100 pixels (I'm rounding). If you're going to push the boundaries, why not push to the next common jump and give yourself even more room to grow?

Not sure if this is a 1a or 1b comment, so I'll just throw it out there. Screen size and resolution aren't the same thing. Back in the 640x480 days, pixels were much bigger and that small resolution filled the screen. I'd say 800x600 didn't really make it that much bigger on the screen because pixel density increased along with it. Same with 1024x768 I believe. But now, as Snapster hinted at some pages ago, pixel density has probably about maxed out. Sure they can probably go tighter, but why? So from now on, more pixels does nearly directly translate into more screen space used. That is why I think 1024 might be a stopping point for website widths, because people may have wanted denser, but they don't want wider.

Also, and this is definitely a 1b comment, I realized the other day that I often drag windows to the middle of my monitor so they're directly in line with my eyes. I don't like to look at things on the edges of my larger monitors. That's part of the reason I don't browse full screen.

Joining the discussion waaaaaaaay late, but what the heck.

I think at some point, somebody needs to bring in some researchers to look at how people best process information. I feel intuitively as if people handle information better in narrower columns. Think pages of a book or columns in a newspaper. A website (or anything, really) that spreads information across too wide a space doesn't allow the brain enough natural breaking points to process well. (And ergonomically speaking, you don't want a website that forces someone to physically turn their head just to read an entire line of text.)

On the other hand, even just filling a central column with your main text/info, then cramming the margins with widgets and boxes, is still overwhelming visually. I'm guessing most of the sidebar stuff gets glossed over, when there's just too much to see/read at one time.

Maybe it's a difference of media, really. I like my webpages--which are mostly reading--in a 4:3 format, while I prefer my video in 16:9. We've started molding computer monitors to be like TV screens, thanks to video tuners and DVD drives, but a lot of a computer's use is still in text-based formats that aren't as ideal for a widescreen setup--at least in the traditional, "I look at one maximized window" sense, which most people ascribe to.

sciotosurfer wrote:Snapster,

Just curious. How did 1080 become the magic number. It seems odd to risk this for an extra 100 pixels (I'm rounding). If you're going to push the boundaries, why not push to the next common jump and give yourself even more room to grow?

as you estimate, breaking 960 or so was the point of no return. 120 is a lot of pixels wider it's all we needed for the 3 column layout to work. to do more causes further shift of content to the right for those in 1024 res. (same reason we don't have padding on the left). It wasn't a consideration to my knowledge, but I find the 1280 full browser screen view with ~60 pixels padding on each side to be quite pleasing.

Sonan wrote:Not sure if this is a 1a or 1b comment, so I'll just throw it out there. Screen size and resolution aren't the same thing. Back in the 640x480 days, pixels were much bigger and that small resolution filled the screen. I'd say 800x600 didn't really make it that much bigger on the screen because pixel density increased along with it. Same with 1024x768 I believe. But now, as Snapster hinted at some pages ago, pixel density has probably about maxed out. Sure they can probably go tighter, but why? So from now on, more pixels does nearly directly translate into more screen space used. That is why I think 1024 might be a stopping point for website widths, because people may have wanted denser, but they don't want wider.

Also, and this is definitely a 1b comment, I realized the other day that I often drag windows to the middle of my monitor so they're directly in line with my eyes. I don't like to look at things on the edges of my larger monitors. That's part of the reason I don't browse full screen.

Those are both pre-1a/1b observations actually - a vote of 1024 wide being the ideal webdesign width forever. I may have jumped the gun in concluding that was not a widely held view; I guess I have been in the computer industry for 20 years and am more expectant of change.

I did talk about pixel density and do understand you're point there - I don't know the answer. I wished to build more of a case for it increasing, but I'd need more research on the subject. iphones and small lcd screens are hugely more dense in pixels than desktops (by many multiples of density), so the technology is there but perhaps it's still super expensive desktop monitor sized. however, I don't know if they'll go more dense, or if they'll figure at the viewing distance people are used to, they are at a point of diminishing returns. I would like to state conclusively that they'll go more dense, but I don't have the facts to support it.

One experiment to test my own appetite for higher density resolution on my desktop is hold my 11" sub notebook screen (which has 1280 pixels wide) up in front of my 24" 1920 wide monitor. Or holding up my iphone up similarly. Doing this, I can see that more density would clearly be usable by my eyes (though I admit the iphone is likely too dense and wastes resolution capability at that distance). The density of the notebook is somewhat greater than that of my 24" and all of that density appears useful to me.

I'm not a fair usage case to comment on the center of page usage. I have 3 monitors in front of me, down from 4 when I upgraded the center to a 24" one. To me the entire center monitor is center to me.

I've requested that the photochop contest be allowed to increase to 550 pixels in both this thread (once) and in various photochop threads ( a least 4 times) without a response. If you'll look at the latest contest, you'll see others have joined me. PLEASE!!!

dschaaf77 wrote:Joining the discussion waaaaaaaay late, but what the heck.

I think at some point, somebody needs to bring in some researchers to look at how people best process information. I feel intuitively as if people handle information better in narrower columns. Think pages of a book or columns in a newspaper. A website (or anything, really) that spreads information across too wide a space doesn't allow the brain enough natural breaking points to process well. (And ergonomically speaking, you don't want a website that forces someone to physically turn their head just to read an entire line of text.)

On the other hand, even just filling a central column with your main text/info, then cramming the margins with widgets and boxes, is still overwhelming visually. I'm guessing most of the sidebar stuff gets glossed over, when there's just too much to see/read at one time.

Maybe it's a difference of media, really. I like my webpages--which are mostly reading--in a 4:3 format, while I prefer my video in 16:9. We've started molding computer monitors to be like TV screens, thanks to video tuners and DVD drives, but a lot of a computer's use is still in text-based formats that aren't as ideal for a widescreen setup--at least in the traditional, "I look at one maximized window" sense, which most people ascribe to.

Agreed completely on the text width comments. Our designers could speak much better to this than I could, but you can also see the influence of this in our design. No longer are the forums fluid width, expanding out to stretch content uncomfortably to the eye on higher resoultion. everything is formated within the recommended width for readability.

Also agreed that for first time visitors, we do have too much going on - Woot 3.0 has very much a dashboard style look that is tough for a first time observer to absorb in one visit. Well over 90% of woot's daily visitors are loyal repeats though - and over time I'm confident that elements of our decision to try and make a daily woot visit as efficient and entertaining will come through. There is very much a 1 pageview serves most needs design effort here that you don't see at 99% of other sites.

[quote postid="2969090" user="ActorTom"]I've requested that the photochop contest be allowed to increase to 550 pixels in both this thread (once) and in various photochop threads ( a least 4 times) without a response. If you'll look at the latest contest, you'll see others have joined me. PLEASE!!!

Yep, unless I just am not thinking of some consequence, that seems like a good idea, I'll pass it on. We have some other thoughts on Photochop changes, but there's no need to wait to expand the allowed width.

dave bug wrote:We have some other thoughts on Photochop changes

care to elaborate for discussion, mr. bug?

Snapster wrote:I would like to state conclusively that they'll go more dense, but I don't have the facts to support it.

I know several people who don't run their LCD monitors or laptops at their native resolution because it makes the icons too small. So there are other hurdles to overcome besides diminishing returns. At some point, the graphical elements of operating systems and web pages need to be defined in visual size rather than pixels.

Snapster wrote:I'm not a fair usage case to comment on the center of page usage. I have 3 monitors in front of me, down from 4 when I upgraded the center to a 24" one. To me the entire center monitor is center to me.

You may have missed my point, because the larger the monitor, the more valid my point is. Multiple monitors can all be angled such that they're perpendicular to you, but geometrically speaking, only the exact center of each monitor is actually perpendicular to your eyes. The further from center you go, the more of an angle the screen is to your line of sight. And if people have old CRTs with curved screens, the effect is obviously magnified. But who has those anymore? /raises hand. But I'm not talking about work here. I'm talking about my flat LCD screens at home. For some reason, even though the effect of the angle seems negligible, I still catch myself automatically dragging stuff to the center.

Sonan wrote:You may have missed my point, because the larger the monitor, the more valid my point is. Multiple monitors can all be angled such that they're perpendicular to you, but geometrically speaking, only the exact center of each monitor is actually perpendicular to your eyes. The further from center you go, the more of an angle the screen is to your line of sight. And if people have old CRTs with curved screens, the effect is obviously magnified. But who has those anymore? /raises hand. But I'm not talking about work here. I'm talking about my flat LCD screens at home. For some reason, even though the effect of the angle seems negligible, I still catch myself automatically dragging stuff to the center.

I don't think I've missed it. It's essentially what I was trying to pull out of folks - to imagine in the future the size of the sweet spot that they'll want a webpages content to be on in future monitor world.

My comment implied that defining center is to some degree relative of your surroundings and distance from your screens - a larger screen or multiple screens could mean a larger comfortable center. In addition I'd add that the edges of this comfort zone extend relative to the length of time you intend to spend reading/working on them. This is why sidebar widgets on the desktop are great - it's content there at a glance in a less than prime area of the screen for long term viewing.

So I definitely agree with what the fact that center reading is more comfortable. It's the size of this center sweet spot and the important measure of how much time will be spent reading/working in each zone of the page that we might disagree on. I would enjoy a webpage that had compelling content to offer me immersive experience within this zone and even some content at the fringe of this zone. If my technology allows for additional sidebar widgets outside of this zone on my desktop, that's even better.

I believe once you define that zone and compare it to the capabilities of even existing higher end desktop displays, the best size for a webpage to exist in the future is greater in pixel width than the 960/1024 size you are pitching as the ideal permanent maximum.

EDIT - this part of the conversation would be much simpler if anyone was experienced with "field of view" data which would allow us to combine distance and size. then we could add in discussion of maximum pixel density at average viewing distance and perhaps get close to a consensus.

I have no idea of the numbers but the calculation itself would look something like this:

X degree primary zone field of view at Y viewing distance = Z wide primary sweet spot and a larger Z+A degree calculation for fringe perception = ZZ total wide design zone. Then backtrack at same Y viewing distance human eye could comfortably distinguish B pixel density. So we'd have ZZ wide and B*ZZ for total resolution.

basically, we would need something like this home theater field of view / distance / resolution calculator but for desktop monitors http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/

Gah! Different!

I use a sidebar gadget to keep up to tabs on the daily woots, and as my pockets have been empty lately, I haven't clicked on it in a while.

The design change is interesting, don't like it don't hate it. Only alloying thing is you changes the colors to more pastel, and my past woots in my sig were color coded to the old site. Oh well, I needed to update it anyway.

Oh, and I'm very impressed to see a woot staff member replying in this thread so often, that kind of interaction is sparse elsewhere, and definitely one of the things I love about woot (I get all giddy when my comment on a woot is one of the ones that gets featured on the first post)

unixrab wrote:It's worth a great deal. The "ideal" web page, however is such a subjective subject as to be almost impossible to define. I certainly could define it for me, but I am just one wooter.

On a more personal note. Everyone picks one or two "online hangouts." woot was a major one of mine... browsing the blogs, reading the product descriptions, listening to the veggie-tale-esque podcasts.... RSS'ing each woot site, voting in derbies... finding wine bargins... posting a few hundred comments here and there. You were my homepage for cryingoutloud. Online hangouts come and go I suppose... I miss woot 2.0, the colors were a case study in brand recognition... your site spawned many imitators.... but they never came close. What happened in the 3.0 conversion was akin to coca cola abandoning red.

Further... from what I can see...what was done, was not asked for by anyone on the site that I could find... no one yelling for a wider site... no one complaining about the Broccoli and Carrots.... (with the exception of the few 1.0 holdouts... I did read them)

Woot looks pretty generic now. I'm not trying to be mean or petty. It just blends in to the myriad other sites. I can't see the far right of the page... and I don't bother.

Finally. I think the notion of platform-specific customizations is an exercise in futility. Linux is fragmented to hundreds of distros.. Windows 7 is going to be released in 7 different flavors. XP is still out there, Vista too... and ... multiply that by the desktop, laptop, mini-computer, and mobile phone iterations and it becomes silly.


Adding insult to injury... I bought an immersion blender yesterday from sellout.woot. I didn't blog on it, or participate in the discussion.. didn't read the funny description, or listen to the podcast.

So. I guess it doesn't matter how wide the screen is or how crappy the colors are. shopping @ woot is more like going to Wal-mart now. If I'm there.. .I'll check the sales.... but I won't be lining up for April 1st, woot's birthday, wootoffs or the like.


meh.



EDIT: Oh... and the additional sales tax is a kick in the teeth too.

I have to agree with this. The site has definitely been watered down to Wal-Mart status. I used to cruise around this site during my free time. Now, I pretty much check the offer on my I-Google page, and only head over here if I want more info on the item. I don't know if it is the scrolling or the color, but the site is just more boring now. I really don't care as much about the "Woot community" as I used too. I find myself surfing around other sites (including one of your competitors) much more than I am on Woot. It just seems I will be a less frequent customer, and I won't be surfing the site.

As for Snapster's comments "few people who still have issues" I don't believe that at all. Just because people are no longer commenting doesn't mean that they don't have issues. I think that numerous people still have issues and don't like the site. But, when you state your opinion and it seems to be continually ignored, you have to give up sometime.

I might have missed it (as i said I am not here as frequently) but I have one final question;

Although I don't agree, I can see your point on the screen size and the whole "it's the future", but what is the justification for the new color? It is just plain ugly.

Salty

drumz0rz wrote:Oh, and I'm very impressed to see a woot staff member replying in this thread so often, that kind of interaction is sparse elsewhere, and definitely one of the things I love about woot (I get all giddy when my comment on a woot is one of the ones that gets featured on the first post)

would you be more impressed if a company ceo responded this often?

Snapster wrote:My comment implied that defining center is to some degree relative of your surroundings and distance from your screens - a larger screen or multiple screens could mean a larger comfortable center. In addition I'd add that the edges of this comfort zone extend relative to the length of time you intend to spend reading/working on them. This is why sidebar widgets on the desktop are great - it's content there at a glance in a less than prime area of the screen for long term viewing.

So I definitely agree with what the fact that center reading is more comfortable. It's the size of this center sweet spot and the important measure of how much time will be spent reading/working in each zone of the page that we might disagree on. I would enjoy a webpage that had compelling content to offer me immersive experience within this zone and even some content at the fringe of this zone. If my technology allows for additional sidebar widgets outside of this zone on my desktop, that's even better.

Our technology used to, until someone decided to start a wide website trend. ;) You agree the center is the sweet spot, yet Woot's main content is left aligned. It wasn't a problem before because the smaller width allowed the left edge to actually be closer to center. But now for a lot of us it's all the way against the left edge of the screen. Sure, we can still drag the window to the center, but that's when the scrollbar ugliness kicks in.

Snapster wrote:I believe once you define that zone and compare it to the capabilities of even existing higher end desktop displays, the best size for a webpage to exist in the future is greater in pixel width than the 960/1024 size you are pitching as the ideal permanent maximum.

If pixel density increases significantly in the future, then by all means the presentation width should increase accordingly to compensate. However, graphical and text elements would need to increase in size as well, somewhat nullifying the effect. In other words, it would be the same visible size but clearer due to more pixels making up the presentation area. IMO, it's actually been a long time since increased pixel density allowed for additional content in the same visible footprint. Besides, you're not compensating for increased pixel density here. You're expanding into additional visible space.

Snapster wrote:EDIT - this part of the conversation would be much simpler if anyone was experienced with "field of view" data which would allow us to combine distance and size. then we could add in discussion of maximum pixel density at average viewing distance and perhaps get close to a consensus.

I have no idea of the numbers but the calculation itself would look something like this:

X degree primary zone field of view at Y viewing distance = Z wide primary sweet spot and a larger Z+A degree calculation for fringe perception = ZZ total wide design zone. Then backtrack at same Y viewing distance human eye could comfortably distinguish B pixel density. So we'd have ZZ wide and B*ZZ for total resolution.

I think you're over-engineering it a bit, something I'm often accused of myself. Y varies from user to user and X varies by personal preference, making any actual calculation of Z and ZZ completely subjective. Granted there's probably a narrow range of acceptable Z and ZZ values, but then you have to incorporate B which varies from device to device. As much as I wish everything could be calculated, I believe user feedback based on their perceptions is far more valuable in this instance.

Sonan wrote:Our technology used to, until someone decided to start a wide website trend. ;) You agree the center is the sweet spot, yet Woot's main content is left aligned. It wasn't a problem before because the smaller width allowed the left edge to actually be closer to center. But now for a lot of us it's all the way against the left edge of the screen. Sure, we can still drag the window to the center, but that's when the scrollbar ugliness kicks in.

An enjoyable jab, though somewhat outside the narrower subtopic of whether 1024 is the permanent maximum webpage width forever. Within this context, I would argue there is dead center (the 1 pixel most centered) and a general sense of center (more subjective) and we differ on the the latter's width in terms of human ideals (not on your exact monitor, but on all future monitors).

Sonan wrote:
If pixel density increases significantly in the future, then by all means the presentation width should increase accordingly to compensate. However, graphical and text elements would need to increase in size as well, somewhat nullifying the effect. In other words, it would be the same visible size but clearer due to more pixels making up the presentation area. IMO, it's actually been a long time since increased pixel density allowed for additional content in the same visible footprint. Besides, you're not compensating for increased pixel density here. You're expanding into additional visible space.

Ok great. I'm glad you concede this likely need to evolve past 1024 websites in the future, and I totally get your point of qualification regarding upsized graphic/font issues. Pixel density is indeed evolving. I found something to point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Device_PPI. Pixel density is increasing to the extent that even with our expanded width we are more narrow on newer notebooks and widescreens than we are on lower resolution monitors.

However, I do still opine that physically greater width is desirable on 1280+ screens even without pixel density increase.

Sonan wrote:
I think you're over-engineering it a bit, something I'm often accused of myself. Y varies from user to user and X varies by personal preference, making any actual calculation of Z and ZZ completely subjective. Granted there's probably a narrow range of acceptable Z and ZZ values, but then you have to incorporate B which varies from device to device. As much as I wish everything could be calculated, I believe user feedback based on their perceptions is far more valuable in this instance.

no argument here in principle. there's a range. However, I believe this range would show human eye focal points to be comfortable at scanning much wider webpages than 1024, especially with (but not mandated by) increased density of pixels.

Again, this sub topic is debating whether 1024 designed websites are the permanent never-to-change standard. Beyond this topic, consideration of Woot's change should all rest on the concerns highlighted as points 1a and 1b (which are both under the technology/timing/audience measurement framework).

Sonan wrote:I believe user feedback based on their perceptions is far more valuable in this instance.

yes. so why does the uproar over the new width order seem to fall on deaf ears? does customer feedback really matter so little?

no1 wrote:yes. so why does the uproar over the new width order seem to fall on deaf ears? does customer feedback really matter so little?

[standby... initiating uproar sequence in 3..2..1]

Those people look far too happy. I think no1 was thinking more along these lines...

I still don't get the color choice, did you answer that earlier and I missed it?

"You see, woot staff, 'this' is narrow. Your website is wide."


(alternate) "Don't let your guard down men! it's an uproar!"

Sonan wrote:Those people look far too happy. I think no1 was thinking more along these lines...

which inevitably leads to

Sonan wrote:Those people look far too happy. I think no1 was thinking more along these lines...

Well, except there are only four of you and the four of you are clearly doing this for fun, in the sense of entertaining yourselves.

editorkid wrote:Well, except there are only four of you and the four of you are clearly doing this for fun, in the sense of entertaining yourselves.

Which Rutledge brother are you?

Snapster wrote:[standby... initiating uproar sequence in 3..2..1]

Do you know the meaning of "hubris?"
Aren't you scared you might have it?

Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) or hybris (/'haɪbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις), mythology is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

Snapster wrote:"You see, woot staff, 'this' is narrow. Your website is wide."


(alternate) "Don't let your guard down men! it's an uproar!"

Ditto.

Feb 14, 2009 12:22 AM permalink vegaboyz
Joined: Sep 25, 2007
Posts: 146
send message
Snapster wrote:
[standby... initiating uproar sequence in 3..2..1]



Do you know the meaning of "hubris?"
Aren't you scared you might have it?

Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) or hybris (/'haɪbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις), mythology is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

yes, I am aware of that risk.



read back further if you want sincerity and logical debate.