Timeline for We're standardizing the sidebar width at 300px on all sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:17 | comment | added | Adrian McCarthy | "No one cares if the ads go partially offscreen" I imagine the folks who paid for the ads care. | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | trlkly | @tepples And I hope it doesn't come off ruder than I meant. It's just frustrating all the focus on the ads, and the fact that everything went through without any comment to the people coming up with other ideas that might work better. | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 15:57 | comment | added | Damian Yerrick | @trlkly Good point about related and HNQ being more important than ads. | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 15:57 | history | edited | Damian Yerrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Per comments: Related and HNQ are probably more important than ads
|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | trlkly | @BretCopland No, the other option was to create a div for the sidebar text so that it didn't expand with the ads. Ideally, it could expand if there's enough room. I do not understand why you keep focusing on the ads. No one cares if the ads go partially offscreen, because we won't be interacting with them 99% of the time. But people use the hot questions and related questions links all the time! That's what the new layout changes. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 0:11 | comment | added | Blorgbeard | Another case: 1920x1080 in portrait orientation. Currently, it juuuust fits. | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 19:17 | comment | added | otus | @Ajedi32, I've zoomed out so I (barely) don't get a scrollbar. | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 19:10 | comment | added | Ajedi32 | @otus If you've zoomed in so far that a horizontal scrollbar is visible, then you're in the 98%. If you only zoomed in enough so that there is currently no horizontal scrollbar, but an extra 80 pixels added to the page width would cause one to appear, then you're in the 2%. | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | otus | @BretCopeland, out of curiosity, what part of the 98% is "already too small"? Also, I use 90% zoom to just fit the whole width on my laptop, I wonder if that counts as "already too small" or in the 2%? | |
| S Jan 8, 2016 at 2:41 | history | edited | The Guy with The Hat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| S Jan 8, 2016 at 2:41 | history | suggested | Möoz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added quote.
|
| Jan 8, 2016 at 0:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 8, 2016 at 2:41 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2016 at 0:03 | comment | added | Pollyanna | Keep in mind that this 98% number is a lot higher than some other terrible numbers, so the 2% that don't get to see all the advertisements who currently do see all the advertisement probably aren't going to miss them. What they will miss, and be annoyed by, is that the related questions and hot network questions will be cut off. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 23:53 | comment | added | Bret Copeland StaffMod | We didn't just make up that 98% number. We measured it for weeks. I don't disagree that a few more ads will be cut-off, but it's small. The other options were 1. shrink the content (which was never going to happen), or 2. don't go to the standard ad-size, which is a larger detriment to our ability to sell ads than a negligible increase in the number of partially obscured ads. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 23:36 | history | answered | Damian Yerrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |