Taptalk is broken

[kelemvor]

As far as accessibility and performance goes it works fine. It doesn't properly scale though. It's because of hard coded pixel sizes. They happen to have one that is the same as your device, but not mine. Look at the code snipped I posted above.

Here's how it looks for me:



You guys could edit that CSS file and change references like "max-width: 1200px" to "max-width: 100%". This way anyone with a display that shows more than 1200px will get 100% of their display filled, but it won't extend beyond the range of the display necessitating scrollbars.

Or you could consider asking xenforo support about it. They may be willing to make the change in a future revision of the software.

Honestly I didn't MEAN to hijack the thread. It's only a minor annoyance. Sorry if i caused you guys any heartburn.

 

[HowardE]

Yep, there's a giant section of whitespace on the left, and another large (but smaller) one on the right. It would be nice if the site scaled to screen sizes a little better.

It's because of poorly designed CSS code that is being used by the site.

For example:

@media(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1200px) {
.dynamic-ad {
    width: 728px;
    height: 90px;
    margin-left:auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    }
}
@media(max-width: 767px) and (min-width: 480px) {
    .dynamic-ad {
    width: 468px;
    height: 60px;
    margin-left:auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    }
}
@media (max-width: 468px){
.dynamic-ad {
width: 320px;
height: auto;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
    }
}

There are lots of explicitly defined elements in pixels. It is the exact opposite of what you want, a scalable site must use percentages in order to scale to mulitple sized (or aspected) displays.

This particular css code is specific to a dynamic ad zone, and the ad sizes are not in percentages. This snippet is not poorly designed, this particular snippet you have chosen to call poorly designed is directly from Google Adsense for serving responsive ads from them.

How to modify your responsive ad code - AdSense Help

 

[HowardE]

As far as accessibility and performance goes it works fine. It doesn't properly scale though. It's because of hard coded pixel sizes. They happen to have one that is the same as your device, but not mine. Look at the code snipped I posted above.

Here's how it looks for me:



You guys could edit that CSS file and change references like "max-width: 1200px" to "max-width: 100%". This way anyone with a display that shows more than 1200px will get 100% of their display filled, but it won't extend beyond the range of the display necessitating scrollbars.

Or you could consider asking xenforo support about it. They may be willing to make the change in a future revision of the software.

Honestly I didn't MEAN to hijack the thread. It's only a minor annoyance. Sorry if i caused you guys any heartburn.

The container is not 100% if you have a screen bigger than 1400px wide. This is not in error, but by design.

 

[Hawkwood]

As far as accessibility and performance goes it works fine. It doesn't properly scale though. It's because of hard coded pixel sizes. They happen to have one that is the same as your device, but not mine. Look at the code snipped I posted above.

Here's how it looks for me:



You guys could edit that CSS file and change references like "max-width: 1200px" to "max-width: 100%". This way anyone with a display that shows more than 1200px will get 100% of their display filled, but it won't extend beyond the range of the display necessitating scrollbars.

Or you could consider asking xenforo support about it. They may be willing to make the change in a future revision of the software.

Honestly I didn't MEAN to hijack the thread. It's only a minor annoyance. Sorry if i caused you guys any heartburn.

That doesn't look like a display from a mobile device, or am I mistaken? I assumed you were having issues with a mobile device, given the Thread..."Tapatalk is Broken"

 

[kelemvor]

Yep. Sorry, I got off topic expounding upon KenGordon's post. Personally I hated when the old site constantly tried to push tapatalk at me when viewing mobile. Good riddance. Obviously though, since at least two of us posted about the design flaw (since it seems to be deliberate) limiting page width I'm not the only one who finds it less than ideal.

You should experience the same thing on a tablet or phone held in landscape mode, since most mobile screens are 1920x1080 (or better for example iphone6 and some androids) and the page width is limited to 1400px.

In the end, even with the width limitation, I find the new site preferable to the old.

 

[The Chairman]

Make sure you're on the latest iteration of Safari or whatever browser you're using.

 

[HowardE]

Yep. Sorry, I got off topic expounding upon KenGordon's post. Personally I hated when the old site constantly tried to push tapatalk at me when viewing mobile. Good riddance. Obviously though, since at least two of us posted about the design flaw (since it seems to be deliberate) limiting page width I'm not the only one who finds it less than ideal.

You should experience the same thing on a tablet or phone held in landscape mode, since most mobile screens are 1920x1080 (or better for example iphone6 and some androids) and the page width is limited to 1400px.

In the end, even with the width limitation, I find the new site preferable to the old.

Like Facebook and many other sites, I opted for a container that is not 1920 wide, but it's a centered block element.

 

[String]

It's a pretty great community, not sure why you think that it shouldn't cost anything.

Where did i say it shouldn't cost anything? Ive got no problem with sensible subscription based sites. I really dislike bandwidth sucking, constantly distracting advertising though. With "free" you generally get what you pay for.
This forum although being 80%+ US market orientated is decent enough to command a small subscription fee, especially for people based in this part of the world.

Having access to multiple forums in one app which makes searching, notifications and everything else centralised is very convenient especially on a mobile platform which is where tapatalk excels. Having to use a different app for different sites and/or the web browsers are far less convenient.

Fortunately adblock plugins for desktop browsers and rooted mobile devices cut down a lot of the rubbish.

 

[The Chairman]

Where did i say it shouldn't cost anything?

Right here:

Fortunately adblock plugins for desktop browsers and rooted mobile devices cut down a lot of the rubbish.

 

[teknitroxdiver]

Where did i say it shouldn't cost anything? Ive got no problem with sensible subscription based sites. I really dislike bandwidth sucking, constantly distracting advertising though. With "free" you generally get what you pay for.
This forum although being 80%+ US market orientated is decent enough to command a small subscription fee, especially for people based in this part of the world.

Having access to multiple forums in one app which makes searching, notifications and everything else centralised is very convenient especially on a mobile platform which is where tapatalk excels. Having to use a different app for different sites and/or the web browsers are far less convenient.

Fortunately adblock plugins for desktop browsers and rooted mobile devices cut down a lot of the rubbish.

For $3.32 per month you can put your money where your mouth is and see zero ads while supporting this great site: http://www.scubaboard.com/community/account/upgrades