New and Tight is not quite as Tight now...

[Bryce]

I just loosened up the width of the New and Tight style. It's a little wider now.

Vote in the poll and let me know what you think.

[Nonimus]

Oh that's what it is...

[Christopher123]

I thought I was seeing things. I personally like it the other way better. Just seemed... 'cozier' to me. But that's just my opinion.

[gmoney]

I like the change.

[Christopher123]

I like the change.

I'm outnumbered so far, lol.

I'll get used to it

[BenBrowdersArse]

I'm still on classic..... I like it wide.

[Goula]

Hard for me to tell, because they both seem to be coming up the same with my browser on my screen.

I've measured the margins on the pages, and they are exactly the same width now in both versions, tight & phat.

[Bryce]

New and Tight is a fixed 950px. New and Phat is relative and grows or shrinks depending on the size of your browser window.

[Tongue_Me]

I have a 19 incher so i'm feeling the benefits right now

[marcde]

I have a 19 incher so i'm feeling the benefits right now

me too - it's great!

[CountryJohn]

I thought it was something I did? Now I have to scroll to the right and left to read threads. No matter, I just switched back to the old style.

[elvin1]

This is better...I have a wide screen...........

[The General]

Too wide - I have to scroll across to see the right hand side...

OK, new and phat will do...

[Riverrick]

One of the things I am trying to learn to do is to use my white space when I'm posting to good effect.

I've noticed that its more visually appealing and my thoughts stand out better if I watch how the words and the sentences and the space all work together. I was getting so I could predict the end result.

But now its all different. So wide and spread across the page. I'm not sure what I think of it yet.

[CTF]

This is better...I have a wide screen...........

I heard that about you, but I wasn't going to say anything.

[Pringle]

Yeah I thought it was something I hit by mistake, I'm a bit of a clumsy jubber, but I didn't worry cause I prefer it.

[sb]

I don't like it, I have to scroll across to read threads.

[GL]

Uhh... thanks, but no.

I like to have JUB open as a window so that I can see the other things happening on my desktop. With the previous setting JUB sat perfectly in it's window and the only scroll bar I had to use was the "up/down."

I just tried both New and Phat and New and Tight... there was very little difference that I could tell.

[cocktales]

Seth in a word, "Sweet"! lol

Thanks for always "tweaking" JUB to improve/make it better for us!

Love ya!

[bacchus]

ugh...used to be able to actually display the forums properly, but now i can't...how do i change it so everything actually fits on the screen? never had to do that before

[slobone]

I don't like phat or classic, I guess I hadn't realized how many posts were so short they only take up on line in those formats. Too much white space.

Hey, since when can we edit right in the forum. Cool!

[MidnightPrism]

I liked it better before

[Bradlee]

<stays with "Classic" JUB

[khushibagh]

This is really annoying. I thought I had screwed up my browser settings but it's JUB's fault. I hope we go back to the old setting soon.

[Zeremonie]

I liked the tighter tight than this. This just feels weird somehow.

[hotdog1846]

For me, it's a bit harder to read the posts. With the longer lines, it's easier to lose my place as the eye snaps from the right edge of the page back to the left at the end of the line (which is why newspaper articles use such a short line length and split things into columns, makes it easier to quickly skim an article).

[MadeUpName27]

I still like Classic.



BTW - With a title of "New and Tight is not quite as Tight now..." am I the only one who expected a slightly different topic???

[confusedboy23]

I prefer the older version, but hey, I'll get used to this......I'm a creature of habit!

[DevinO]

This is irritating. I have to scroll back and forth. I could change my resolution so all fits on the screen but then the words would be so small I wouldn't be able to read them. The old way was much easier to deal with.

[JakeBequette]

So... You're saying that the New and Tight thing is now. . . . . . . loose?

[Riverrick]

I still like Classic.



BTW - With a title of "New and Tight is not quite as Tight now..." am I the only one who expected a slightly different topic???

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got turned on by that!

[NedNickerson]

At first, I thought I liked it but when I started reading longer posts that stretched all the way across from one side of the screen to the other, I realized it was difficult for my 49-year-old eyes to keep up with which line of text I was reading when I was scanning back from one side of the screen to the other. I vote that we go back to the way things were...

[Chance1826]

With my Apple Cinema display...it looks great!

[D-Base]

It's okay, I don't mind it but I voted "No" cuz I honestly don't see the difference between the phat and tight...

[Hard-up1]

I voted Yes.

It's always about SIZE on JUB, no matter what anyone tells you to the contrary.

Those guys who are complaining that it won't fit in their box now are just trying to convince us they're not sluts.

[rotary]

I originally voted no, but I like it a lot better now. Good tweak

[bacchus]

trying to get used to classic, but i can't seem to get my eyes to adjust to it...

is it just me or are the colors in the 'classic' scheme washed out like someone put it all in a washing machine with too much bleach?

[dynk]

To tell you the truth, I just tried it, and like the style, but the darker blue headings are a bit hard on the eyes foro me. So I still like the Classic best, and still use it.

[NW007]

I voted no only because my screen is 17 " and therefore I switched to classic so I don't have to scroll back and forth all the time.

[Andreus]

I voted no only because my screen is 17 " and therefore I switched to classic so I don't have to scroll back and forth all the time.

weird

i have a 17" laptop and it works just fine

what is your screen resolution set at?

it should not be a problem if it's set correctly

[sheep]

The wider format flies in the face of Fitts' Law.

[Riverrick]

The wider format flies in the face of Fitts' Law.

Ok, I give. What is Fitts' Law?

[alister9669]

I hate it.

[sheep]

Ok, I give. What is Fitts' Law?

Fitts' law is a robust model of human psychomotor behavior developed in 1954. The model is based on time and distance. It enables the prediction of human movement and human motion based on rapid, aimed movement, not drawing or writing.

It seems intuitive that movement time would be affected by the distance moved and the precision demanded by the size of the target to which one is moving. Fitts discovered that movement time was a logarithmic function of distance when target size was held constant, and that movement time was also a logarithmic function of target size when distance was held constant. Mathematically, Fitts' law is stated as follows:

MT = a + b log2(2A/W)

where

MT = movement time
a,b = regression coefficients
A = distance of movement from start to target center
W = width of the target

And you thought I was just another pretty face

[Riverrick]

Mathematically, Fitts' law is stated as follows:

MT = a + b log2(2A/W)

where

MT = movement time
a,b = regression coefficients
A = distance of movement from start to target center
W = width of the target

And you thought I was just another pretty face

Say What?

[NedNickerson]

Fitts' law is a robust model of human psychomotor behavior developed in 1954. The model is based on time and distance. It enables the prediction of human movement and human motion based on rapid, aimed movement, not drawing or writing.

It seems intuitive that movement time would be affected by the distance moved and the precision demanded by the size of the target to which one is moving. Fitts discovered that movement time was a logarithmic function of distance when target size was held constant, and that movement time was also a logarithmic function of target size when distance was held constant. Mathematically, Fitts' law is stated as follows:

MT = a + b log2(2A/W)

where

MT = movement time
a,b = regression coefficients
A = distance of movement from start to target center
W = width of the target

That's enough to give anyone a Fitt...

[Sausy]

Virtually the same as new and phat now....but I almost always keep it in classic....love the way it looks on the screen better,sometimes what works just needs a fresh look and tweaking,which is how classic looks now.