Website facelift!

[Steve St.Laurent]

What resolution are you running your screen at? You can check that by going to your control panel and then clicking on display and settings. If you are at 640x480 then there isn't enough room for the buttons to fit on the screen width and they will get doubled up - only way to get around that would be for me to add a fourth row of buttons and I'd rather not go that route. Very few people run at 640x480 any more, try turning your resolution up to 800x600 if you can (any PC made in the last 7 years or so should be able to run 800x600 no problem).

 

[wsmalley]

I am running my PC at 1240x768 with Win2000 Pro and Explorer 6. 0... . everything looks good here... . Love the new look. Good Job!

 

[dusthomps]

Steve...



Checked resolution and you're right... it's set at 640x480. Problem is that's the only option I have. #ad
Computer was new in 98...

 

[RaymondSchultz]

Steve,

New look is great, I have no problem with either my lap top or PC.



Thanks

 

[Teacher]

facelift

Looks great, Steve.

Thanks for your hard work!

 

[Michael Hughes]

I was still seeing double buttons, I found that there is a min. size font setting in Galeon that was the problem. Hope this helps anyone that is also running Galeon.

 

[nfox]

new website

I think its great steve!!!!Oo.

 

[FMcClaren]

Looks and works great for me Steve. Thanks



Frank

 

[ntenna]

Steve - I'm probably the only person here running a MAC (OS 10. 2. 4 and IE 5. 2. 2), and I have to take the "Text View" size down to 75% to get the buttons to match, at which point they (and the text) are a bit teeny for my eyes as well. Running 1280 x 1024 on a 17" flat panel..... next size down is pretty funky, so I guess I will just not worry about the buttons.....



Bet you are thinking this is not worth the hassle.



Anyway, thanks for the good work.

 

[ntenna]

I turned "page specify fonts" off in my IE preferences and set view to Western Latin 1 character set. That let me get to a combination that worked. A little harder to read but workable. I'll play with it and keep you posted.

 

[hammersley]

looks great

I'm running XP and she looks A-OK... ...

 

[ntenna]

Went back to the funky buttons... . my experiment works here but causes issues at other sites.





Oh, well... ... I can live with the text spilling over the buttons, can still pretty much tell what to push.



JH

 

[J D Moore]

Facelift is usable for this MAC user; OS 9. 2. 2 & Nescape 7. 01. (Micro$oft free).

I live rural with slooow internet access speed. Would appreciate quick-loading "light" web pages.

Thanks for all your good work.

Jim

 

[ntenna]

Golly, there are two of us!!!



Like your horns.....

 

[EricBu12]

Hey steve,

Now that you have servers that can handle the load, how about putting the Avatars back on? All the other sites do it... .

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Eric, server loads haven't been a problem since the new servers were put in place early last year. Nothing was done with the servers in this recent move - they were just moved to a new facility. When we removed the avatars we got lots of input from users on dial up connections that they much appreciated the increase in speed without the avatars, and it reduced the bandwidth that the site uses by about half. That's the reason the avatars continue to be turned off. I was surprised recently to learn that at least one user can only connect at 12k because of his rural phone line connection. As an example the first page of this thread at 33. 6k would take ~47 seconds to load,2 if avatars were turned on that same page at 33. 6k would take 103 seconds to load. For the user connected at 12k it would take him 122 seconds to download the first page, with avatars turned on it would be 283 seconds (close to 5 minutes!). We constantly try to improve the site and balance the features and speed of the site with the users wants and needs. The avatars just don't add enough to the site to warrant turning them back on. Note this request just a few posts above yours:

I live rural with slooow internet access speed. Would appreciate quick-loading "light" web pages.

-Steve

 

[steamer]

Steve,



I'm new to the web site, so I have no comparison to the old. But I do have a question. Why isn't there a "Log In" and a "Log Out" button on the home page? Or is there, and I'm not finding it?



Steamer

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

That's on my to do list steamer. I've been working on fully integrating the site for a little while. Previously the forum software was seperate from everything else on the site and you needed a seperate login name and password for each part of the site. I now have everything integrated into the forum database with the exception of the travel companion and the classifieds. I have the software finished for the travel companion and am waiting for other staff people to go through the database and attach the records to the names in the database. The classifieds won't ever be integrated because non-members are allowed to post to the classifieds as well as members so it will have to stay seperate. I will be adding a logon to the main page soon.



-Steve

 

[illflem]

There is a log off button (actually a blue link line) near the bottom right on the main forum page, if you click it and log off it will change to a log on box.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

I've added a login/logout box on the home page along with many of the others (all of the html pages). I will try to add it to the other pages later (cgi and php). Along with that I also put on there how many new private messages you have, how many new threads and posts since the last time you were on, and a search link to take you to the new posts.



-Steve