Site not sizing to browser

[Garufa]

As the title says...TGO is no longer sizing to the browser Window.  Have tried Firefox, IE and Chrome on two different machines.

 

 

[itchytriggerfinger]

Hold the Shift key and click Refresh?

[TGO David]

What's your screen resolution?

[2.ooohhh]

Having the same issue in Chrome on Windows 7. Resolution is 1920x1920 total  or 1920x1080 per monitor.(they are turned portrait rather than landscape) Annoying to keep having to scroll right to see buttons on the right side of the site such as "view new content".

[itchytriggerfinger]

Yeah, the content area has an 1190px min width.  So if you are running in portrait it's going to scroll.

[2.ooohhh]

What in the content is forcing the 1190px min. None of the dozens of other sites and forums that I frequent have any issue adapting to this. 

[itchytriggerfinger]

It's actually the CSS setting doing it, not the content.

[TGO David]

Having the same issue in Chrome on Windows 7. Resolution is 1920x1920 total  or 1920x1080 per monitor.(they are turned portrait rather than landscape) Annoying to keep having to scroll right to see buttons on the right side of the site such as "view new content".

 

That's a really odd monitor configuration.  I can fix the min res but sooner or later we get to the point where one person is trying to become the common denominator for everyone else.

[TGO David]

CSS has been updated.  Force your browser to refresh.

[TGO David]

For what it's worth, when I make code changes to the site, I test the ever loving shit out of them across platforms and devices.

• Windows with Firefox
• Windows with Chrome
• Windows with MSIE (bleh)
• Mac with Firefox
• Mac with Chrome
• Mac with Safari (bleh)
• iPhone
• Android Tablet

 

What I don't do is turn my monitors on their head.  That practice will most certainly not change.

[itchytriggerfinger]

I feel your pain David.  I'm in the same business. 

[Garufa]

Thanks.  Sizing is correct now.

 

FYI, I am currently running 1024x768.  Tried increasing the resolution but that had minimal effect at least from a usability standpoint.

 

Just out of curiosity what changed over the past few days?  Last night was the first time I've been on a computer since last Wednesday (in a way it was very nice to be unplugged).

[2.ooohhh]

Yep, the CSS is sizing correctly now. Not sure what you changed but thanks it's much better. I understand I'm weird mainly due to more time looking at CT scans rather than web pages, but responsive style sheets aren't that weird of a request to a web developer these days. 

[itchytriggerfinger]

Not that weird of a request until you have to actually implement one.  They can be a royal PITA.

[TGO David]

Yep, the CSS is sizing correctly now. Not sure what you changed but thanks it's much better. I understand I'm weird mainly due to more time looking at CT scans rather than web pages, but responsive style sheets aren't that weird of a request to a web developer these days. 

 

 

Not that weird of a request until you have to actually implement one.  They can be a royal PITA.

 

 

Yeah, I am a pretty devoted student of Responsive Design but there eventually comes a point where it collides with IPB3.  To see that collision at work, now that I've bumped our minimum width down to 960px, resize the browser and scrunch it down a narrow as you can and watch the main nav menu at the top of the page when you compress and expand the width of the window.  It gets ugly real fast.  1190px kept that at bay.

 

IPB4 is a lot better but it still suffers a bit.  I'm seeing 1190px become a very common min-width setting in CSS across a variety of platforms lately.  Wordpress, Joomla, Xenforo, IPB and other themes and skins are starting to run it as an acknowledgement that the 1024x768 resolution is all but dead on modern computers.

 

No offense meant to Garufa.   :)

[RED333]

Yall just stop, all the computer jargon is making my head hurt!!! :rant: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[peejman]

Thanks boss.  The reduced min width helps me when "stealth browsing" at work.  ;)

[hipower]

Yall just stop, all the computer jargon is making my head hurt!!! :rant: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It doesn't make my head hurt. I just don't have a clue what any of these guys said...

All I know is that I press these little letter squares on this flat typewriter and I can do some things.

That's about it for me. Really.

[Mike.357]

i never noticed any problems or any changes. 

 

Situation normal here.

[hipower]

Actually, I have seen this happen here on my antiquated pc several times of late.

[Oh Shoot]

....as an acknowledgement that the 1024x768 resolution is all but dead on modern computers.

 

 

Yeah, same as with 800x600 before that, and 640x480 before that.

 

I hadn't actually noticed any change, as though while I seldom run any app full screen, guess I was always doing forums at 1200 or more, so never got the scrolling.

 

- OS

[NoBanStan]

Yeah, same as with 800x600 before that, and 640x480 before that.

 

I hadn't actually noticed any change, as though while I seldom run any app full screen, guess I was always doing forums at 1200 or more, so never got the scrolling.

 

- OS

 

I don't even want to think about those resolutions. Makes my head hurt. Kinda like a CRT running at 60hz... I could literally see the screen flickering/rolling.

[Omega]

Not sure its a resolution issue, I have some posts not sizing correctly such as this one:

 

 http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/86359-uc-irvine-votes-to-ban-the-american-flag/

 

This post only fills the left most quarter or less of my screen on my samsung tablet and samsung phone both running chrome.

 

I seen this happen before but in those it was pictures that were rather large would distort the single post the picture was in to the right leaving all other posts the original size/width.

 

No post in that linked post though so not sure what ks doing it.

[TGO David]

That's an odd one.  Going to have to look at it a little closer to see what happened there.

[Omega]

Just checked, looks good now.