[attachment=967:text spacing.png]
left:old, right new.
Maybe it's just details, but the new is approximately 10/9 times more spacey. And that does count I think.
EDIT: Sorry, i wanted to edit the post, not to post a new one.
What Does Everyone Think About The New Site Layout?
...approximately 10/9 times...
No idea what this means, but I still don't see any appreciable difference
Don't forget that failing to convince me doesn't mean I won't be outvoted by the rest of the staff, but IMO this text-spacing thing is not an issue worth any attention
No idea what this means, but I still don't see any appreciable difference
10% increase in the size per line. Left side seems to contain 11 newlines compared to the right's 10 in the same space, despite using fonts of apparently identical height (although differing wideness). Wouldn't hurt to bump it down a bit... you've currently got:
ipb_styles.css:2678
.post_body {
margin-left: 235px;
line-height: 100%;
}
.post_block.no_sidebar .post_body {
margin-left: 0px;
}
.post_body .post {
margin-top: 3px;
padding: 10px;
line-height: 150%; /* <--- chrome says this is being matched, and it looks bloody ugly */
}
The intertubes tells me browsers default to 110-120%, and I wouldn't mind it as low as 100% with this font. A preview (current 150% vs 100%):
Plus the current font looks smaller than the old, despite the same height (9 px in the image I posted). I seem to be finical and old-is-perfect/new-is-sux, but it does count to me. I don't see too well, so I have to increase the size of the new font to make it as readable as the old one. So even bigger vertical space...
Don't do anything about it, if I'm the only one with this of course.
Edit: left click on an image should open in in a new tab IMHO.
Don't do anything about it, if I'm the only one with this of course.
Edit: left click on an image should open in in a new tab IMHO.
[attachment=967:text spacing.png]
left:old, right new.
Maybe it's just details, but the new is approximately 10/9 times more spacey. And that does count I think.
EDIT: Sorry, i wanted to edit the post, not to post a new one.
Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here. First, a post on the old site vs. the same text using the default font on the new site:
[attachment=968:compare.jpg]
Next, a post on the old site vs. the same text and Verdana on the new site:
[attachment=969:compare1.jpg]
Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here...
I just tried what you did myself but opened the old post version in a separate window and then sized it down to match the horizontal space we have for posts on this forum and then I finally noticed a difference. Again, small but at least this time I could see it instead of thinking I was imagining it.
The intertubes tells me browsers default to 110-120%, and I wouldn't mind it as low as 100% with this font.
I suppose I would be willing to try out 125% and see what people think. The 100% is definitely too close together. People who complain about the white site burning their eyes out late at night are going to have the same problem focusing tired and bleary eyes on closely-spaced text even if it's on a darker background.
Since you're comparing multiple lines, did you size the width of the old forum post to match the fixed-width of the new forum post?
No, since that wouldn't affect the vertical line spacing. I just adjusted it so that the total number of lines per paragraph was the same.
rats didn't finish editing my last post fast enough. If you compare with the same widths, you'll see that the old version does fit in the same amount of text in a noticeably lesser amount of vertical space.
[attachment=971:spacing.png]
This is the old post sized the same width and then matched from the top of the text
In other words, I stand corrected
[attachment=971:spacing.png]
This is the old post sized the same width and then matched from the top of the text
In other words, I stand corrected
Trying to do a more apples to apples comparison here.
Hmm. Is your zoom on both sites at 100%?
Even with more newlines on the old left theme (whoops, overcompensated), it's shorter by a good bit at 100% zoom with chrome.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement