Oh man, the new layout is REALLY bad!

[Suicides-by-Steve]

I dislike it intensely. Reviews sorted by Developers include console games and platforms, and well as by PC-type! So searching for a GOD game brings up 7 or 8 GOD's with no explanation beside them! I had to click on each one, and saw GOD-Dreamcast, GOD-PC SIMULATION... uh no thanks. There's no index feature I could find intuitively to anchor me directly to the "S" titles for instance (WHY!? this is so easy to do), and when you have to click next, next, next, next skipping 50 titles in order to surf to the "S" section it is time consuming, and frustrating... Amalgamating the two sites is a bad idea in retrospect, since I for one don't have a bunch of time to surf through the crap that's laden upon some of those platforms... nor do I care to see the ads, and other trash targeting today's youth, like Mario, the girls from the XBox volleyball, or Crash. I see the Vote of the week is asking about Playstations or something like that... Really, who cares? I know thats one of the options... hmm... I feel sad... and the future is looking kinda grim actually... Even the fact that I'm posting at Video Game Review sounds nerdy. I have posted a poll of my own in fact, I'm so concerned!

[moya]

Well, given what's been said over in Site Feedback/Discussion, I'm kind of resigned to the new look. It'll take a while (ok, maybe a LONG while) to get used to, but if it's here to stay then... so be it. Not that the old PCGR frontpage was the pinnacle of web design or anything, but at least you could find what you wanted quickly. Personally, I'm not that bothered about the integration of the two websites as long as we get our own portal page solely for PC games with all the features and functionality of the old home page (yeah, this might not happen overnight, but hopefully...). Otherwise, I can see the current design and layout turning a lot of people off.

For instance, it doesn't make sense to me that Fallout is listed under "Classic Roleplaying" whereas Fallout 2 is listed under "PC games Roleplaying". As we've seen so many times on the forums, more categories is not necessarily a good thing. Nevertheless, I eventually found it, so it's not all bad.

The layout of the reviews is fairly atrocious I think. The already much-criticised "huge blank space" on the right means that reviews come out rather more elongated than I would've liked. Longer paragraphs which were possible to read on the old setup - which used most of the page - become difficult with the new layout.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that creating a generic design for review sites covering topics as diverse as automobiles and computer games is not an easy task. There are inevitably going to be areas where compromises have to be made. And some compromises are less easy to swallow than others. As someone on one of the threads over in Site Feedback said: searching for a car by manufacturer is all well and good, searching for a pc game by publisher is not!

I would say short-term goals are:

* Enable searching of new PC games only.
* Enable alphabetised searching.
* Get rid of the god-awful "next 50, next 50, next 50" tedious searching method.

Longer-term goal maybe:

* Create fully functional PC games ONLY portal with all the news and polls and features of the old site but in the new look.

I don't know if all this will be possible, but I think it's a good aim.

Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy the new look and feel of the forums, and I'm thankful for the time and effort those in charge have put in to make this work out. The new features make searching and posting much better and much easier. Nor do I expect a miracle with the main site overnight. I fully understand that in the real world some changes take time, and maybe in the end we'll be stuck with the ads and overall design. However, I do think the community must speak up about these issues. And the site admin must listen to the community's views on this topic or risk driving a lot of people - both regulars and newbies - away from the new site.

[Hieremias]

I voted for the third option--it looks good, just needs some refining.

The complaints you guys have are minor ones--the way games are sorted, etc. These are refinements that I hope ConsumerReview looks at. And we really need the ability to see the latest reviews, sorted by platform.

But the overall page layout is great. It's much more attractive and streamlined than the old one. It's not as cluttered. The much-maligned "big white space" on the right side is a standard web design practice; the page is optimized to fit on 800x600 screens. Many large websites (like Yahoo or CNN) employ this layout, it gives the developer precise control over what's being displayed. The alternative is a variable-width layout, which can look good but can also be a pain to design for.

Plus the human eye gets tired and distracted when reading text spread across a wide space, which is why newspapers organize text into narrow columns.

Nope, from a design point of view I like the new layout. There are a few refinements to be made with the way the reviews are sorted and can be queried, that's all.

Oh by the way, someone hacked into the database. Go look at reviews for PC Action games. It's pretty funny.

[Lara]

<div class=\"smallfont\">
Oh by the way, someone hacked into the database. Go look at reviews for PC Action games. It's pretty funny.</div>

I believe those "hacks" were the engineers working on tightening up the site and they forgot to delete them as products. I have a message in to them to fix.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I voted for the third option--it looks good, just needs some refining.

The complaints you guys have are minor ones--the way games are sorted, etc. These are refinements that I hope ConsumerReview looks at. And we really need the ability to see the latest reviews, sorted by platform.</div>

I dunno about minor, if an experienced user such as myself is getting frustrated trying to track down reviews and such, that's not a little issue, and should be addressed immediately. I read this site for the reviews, not for the nice looking page layout... If it's hard to get to a review quickly, then it's time to move on. What's even worse is when you've spend a couple minutes clicking to get to the "S" section, only to realise the dev's didn't even put the review of the game under that heading...

<div class=\"smallfont\">But the overall page layout is great. It's much more attractive and streamlined than the old one. It's not as cluttered. The much-maligned "big white space" on the right side is a standard web design practice; the page is optimized to fit on 800x600 screens. Many large websites (like Yahoo or CNN) employ this layout, it gives the developer precise control over what's being displayed. The alternative is a variable-width layout, which can look good but can also be a pain to design for.</div>

I always thought the other CR sites looked bland, and drab, and a simple marketing course will tell you that first impressions are much needed when snagging a customer. It seems... more clutered now, the more they tried to streamline it. There's nothing ON it, except ads, so why do I need to go there now? Hmmm, you know what... I don't think I need to... I'll be marking this Forum site as PCGR's homepage now, since that's all I'll be using it for until there's something worthwhile there for me to read...

As for this CNN and whatever not formatting pages above viewing resolutions of 800x600- what a load of crap. Any good WYSIWYG editor will offer such fine-tuned control of a pages' layout thats no excuse at all... the extra white space is there for ad placements... don't kid yourself. I'm looking at this page in 1024x768 right this instant, and guess what the whole page is filled- the right column with, yup, you guessed it, ads!


<div class=\"smallfont\">Plus the human eye gets tired and distracted when reading text spread across a wide space, which is why newspapers organize text into narrow columns.</div>

Eh- moot point, font size can be increased on a computer, making most reading equivilent to reading a hardcover...

<div class=\"smallfont\">Oh by the way, someone hacked into the database. Go look at reviews for PC Action games. It's pretty funny.</div>

Whoops, looks like an admin somewhere assigned his permissions a tad bit wrong! 8P NOW we know why Dobians review has been changed! Heh!

[Hieremias]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\">
I dunno about minor, if an experienced user such as myself is getting frustrated trying to track down reviews and such, that's not a little issue, and should be addressed immediately.
</div>

When I said "minor" I didn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, but that it wasn't a major design change, at least not for the layout. I'm not entirely sure how they have it set up, but as a web systems programmer myself I know it shouldn't be too hard to refine the sorting functions.

I agree that it's an important refinement, and I hope it's addressed ASAP.

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\">
As for this CNN and whatever not formatting pages above viewing resolutions of 800x600- what a load of crap. Any good WYSIWYG editor will offer such fine-tuned control of a pages' layout thats no excuse at all... the extra white space is there for ad placements... don't kid yourself. I'm looking at this page in 1024x768 right this instant, and guess what the whole page is filled- the right column with, yup, you guessed it, ads!
</div>

Allright fine, it's optimized for a page width of 1024 (including the ads, which are an unfortunately necessary evil). I haven't bothered to look at it in other resolutions. I'm looking at it with a width of 1280, and the page only takes up the left half of the screen (almost exactly half). But I expect that with such a high resolution, most other sites do the same. That's why I don't generally browse the internet with a maximized explorer window (I have other stuff open on the desktop too).

Either way the point is that the page is designed for a fixed width layout, not dynamic. Designing it for fixed-width means that the developer can know EXACTLY how it will look on the end-user's computer (which can't be said about variable-width), at the cost of having some hi-res users see a large blank space on the side. When I design business websites I use fixed-width too.

Your point about WYSIWYG editors is irrelevant; the issue isn't whether the developer can make what he wants, it's whether he wants all users (with different resolutions) to see the same thing. The developer can use WYSIWYG programs to produce something that looks great on his monitor, but may look like crap on someone else's. But since this site is PHP driven, I doubt they use WYSIWYG editors too much, if at all.

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\">
Eh- moot point, font size can be increased on a computer, making most reading equivilent to reading a hardcover...
</div>

No it isn't a moot point, you didn't understand what I said. Increasing the font size doesn't change the width of the text column. It is a well-known fact that the human eye tires when it has to scan across a wide column of text; it's too much eye movement, the muscles tire, and the brain gets distracted. That's why hardcover books tend to have such wide margins; the actual column of text isn't much wider than the paperbacks. And when you buy a great big hardcover (like those National Geographic things), yup, the text is in multiple columns. At least it should be.

This is the reason why text-heavy websites (like this one) never--or at least should never--make their articles span across the entire width of the screen. Even sites like www.wdvl.com, which is variable-width (the site takes up the whole width of the screen), have their text articles displayed in a narrow column.

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\">
Whoops, looks like an admin somewhere assigned his permissions a tad bit wrong! 8P NOW we know why Dobians review has been changed! Heh!</div>

We also know why Mochan won all those dozens of review contests awhile back. ;)

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"Your point about WYSIWYG editors is irrelevant; the issue isn't whether the developer can make what he wants, it's whether he wants all users (with different resolutions) to see the same thing. The developer can use WYSIWYG programs to produce something that looks great on his monitor, but may look like crap on someone else's. But since this site is PHP driven, I doubt they use WYSIWYG editors too much, if at all.
"

HUH!? With today's editor's, it's simply a matter of hitting a button to view what the page will look like in various resolutions, and in varying browsers...

It may be PHP scripted, but that script is only embedded within the HTML; I'd imagine it's not hand-coded entirely either... but it could be.

My site (http://members.rogers.com/mandjlewis/index.htm) is variable-width, and it was simple to design...and looks good in all resolutions/browsers...

And I understood perfectly what you were talking about regarding fonts, Jeremy. If I encounter a page with text heavy documentation, I simply increase the font size, with minimal eyestrain. For you on the other hand... viewing s*** in 1280x1024, windowed, and then stating that "...the human eye gets tired and distracted when reading text spread across a wide space" is hilarious...

[Richard Hobbes]

Suicides-by-Steve (and to Lara and Chris),

Regarding Steve's comments on the new/merged videogamereview.com and pcgamereview.com sites:

--- I dislike it intensely. Reviews sorted by Developers include
--- console games and platforms, and well as by PC-type! So
--- searching for a GOD game brings up 7 or 8 GOD's with no
--- explanation beside them! I had to click on each one, and
--- saw GOD-Dreamcast, GOD-PC SIMULATION... uh no thanks.

This is a huge problem. The navigation if the new site is so bad that I'm almost at the point of not using it until it is fixed.

Key issue #1: I can no longer find the games I'm looking for without incredible difficulty. PC games and console games are an entirely different genre so putting them together makes no sense. When I'm searching for Football games on PC, I do not want to see console games because they are of no consequence to my search. Ditto for console games and specific platforms. If I'm searching for NBA Street 2 on PS2, I don't want to see all the versions on Xbox, GameCube, etc. It really seems that the new site design was created without any regard for usability. It may look pretty, but it is so difficult to find what you're looking for that it is better to go to another web site.

--- There's no index feature I could find intuitively to anchor
--- me directly to the "S" titles for instance (WHY!? this is so
--- easy to do)

This is the key thing that makes me think the new site design was not created with gaming users in mind. This is the standard way that all gaming sites use for navigation. You need to be able to filter by platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube, PS2, GBA, etc.) and then get alphabetical listings of games within that platform. Go to *any* gaming site (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) and this is the navigation mechanism. These other sites also provide a search feature, but the search feature is used only a small part of the time. The search feature is critical to be sure, but it does not replace platform/alphabetical listings. By removing the platform/alphabetical listings, VGR has taken away the key navigation mechanism that gamers use and replaced it with nothing. Thumbs down folks. A big thumbs down.

--- and when you have to click next, next, next, next
--- skipping 50 titles in order to surf to the "S" section
--- it is time consuming, and frustrating...

Yes. This problem goes hand-in-hand with the platform/alphabetical listings. When you had platform/alphabetical listings, there was no need to page the results.

Key issue #2: Users hate having to flip between pages of results. Browsers scroll down for a reason - so that you can have many results on a single page.

Key issue #3: When designing a web interface you must be careful not to interfere with the user's browser. When results are placed across multiple pages you not only force users to flip pages, but you also (effectively) disable the browser's Find feature. (i.e. the Find feature can no longer be used to find a specific result because the result may be on a different page).

Key issue #4: When overhauling something as large as PCGameReview.com and VideoGameReview.com, conduct a best practices study. Canvass your users to find out what they like and dislike about the site. Go to other web sites and see what successful techniques, navigation, etc. they use. Do not rely on "silver bullets". A silver bullet is when a software manufacturer or manager says "this software XXXX" or "this technique XXXX" will solve all your problems. Rarely can a single tool or technique solve all problems. Likewise, if your project's success is dependant on one tool, what happens if the tool fails? You need to identify risks and provide alternatives.

--- Amalgamating the two sites is a bad idea in
--- retrospect, since I for one don't have a bunch
--- of time to surf through the crap that's laden
--- upon some of those platforms... nor do I care
--- to see the ads, and other trash targeting today's
--- youth, like Mario, the girls from the Xbox volleyball,
--- or Crash.

Yes, there does seem to be a huge problem with focus. The other problem I see is that now that the site is restricted to appearing on only half my screen (here I'm referring to the large column of white space that the new site now leaves on the right hand side of my monitor), the advertising really dominates the content you see. The advertising is so big in relationship to the actual content that it makes the actual content difficult to see and read. As I said above, I'm at the point where I'd rather use another web site than use the new videogamereview.com - the site is that frustrating to use.

-- I see the Vote of the week is asking about
--- Playstation or something like that... Really,
--- who cares?

Another focus problem like the one above. Whomever designed the new site did not understand the needs of video gamers.

--- I feel sad... and the future is looking
--- kinda grim actually... Even the fact
--- that I'm posting at Video Game Review
--- sounds nerdy. I have posted a poll
--- of my own in fact, I'm so concerned!

Earlier on I wrote a post on the old VideoGameReview.com forums about the importance of involving uses in software projects. My point was that even though your new system may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, if you don't get user acceptance , then your system will fail. I've been managing software projects for many years and what I'm seeing at VGR has some of the same critical mistakes that I've seen cause other projects to fail. I'm not saying that things are beyond hope, but someone at VGR needs to take this project by the horns ad realize that they've made some bad mistakes that need correcting.

Key issue #5: This comes straight out the project management textbook "Rapid Development" by Microsoft engineer Steve McConnell. If you have a project that is near critical failure, doing more of the same will not fix your project. To fix radical problems, you need to take radical steps. What this means is that if your project is in critical trouble, doing more of the same things that got you into critical trouble will not save your project. You need to brainstorm and try radical ideas that seem feasible.

For example, let's say your project is critically behind schedule. Most project mangers would say "keep working, get the programmers to work more overtime." But if you've reached a critical failure point, this won't save your project. One solution might be this: "tell the programmers to stop working for a few days, we're going to hold an executive meeting to sort this out". Say what? Stop the programmers from working when you are behind schedule? This seems crazy, but is it? If your project is going to fail, what is the point of having all your programmers work? Perhaps scope can be changed, budget can be adjusted, another solution found, or some other solution that has not been thought of yet. In the case of VGR, I suggest the following: put the old sites back. While this might sound crazy, if the new (merged) site is not well thought out, this seems better than having all your users go to other sites. I'm not saying scrap the new site entirely, just that some brainstorming needs to occur and that in order to get the time to so do this, putting the old sites back seems like a logical temporary fix.

Key issue #6: Whatever VGR does to fix the problems with the new site and bulletin boards, my advice is "get your users involved in the process". Your systems will not be successful without user buy-in and acceptance. For example, if you are considering changing key features like site navigation, find out how your users navigate the site and what features are important to them. Don't just change things like this without knowing the needs and desires of your user community.

RH.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">"Your point about WYSIWYG editors is irrelevant; the issue isn't whether the developer can make what he wants, it's whether he wants all users (with different resolutions) to see the same thing. The developer can use WYSIWYG programs to produce something that looks great on his monitor, but may look like crap on someone else's. But since this site is PHP driven, I doubt they use WYSIWYG editors too much, if at all.
"

HUH!? With today's editor's, it's simply a matter of hitting a button to view what the page will look like in various resolutions, and in varying browsers...

It may be PHP scripted, but that script is only embedded within the HTML; I'd imagine it's not hand-coded entirely either... but it could be.

My site (http://members.rogers.com/mandjlewis/index.htm) is variable-width, and it was simple to design...and looks good in all resolutions/browsers...

And I understood perfectly what you were talking about regarding fonts, Jeremy. If I encounter a page with text heavy documentation, I simply increase the font size, with minimal eyestrain. For you on the other hand... viewing s*** in 1280x1024, windowed, and then stating that "...the human eye gets tired and distracted when reading text spread across a wide space" is hilarious...</div>
The site is designed and coded for 800 pixel wide optimization. It does give us more control and consitency over how the pages are displayed. The fact that there is a wide right side gutter is not so we can fill it up with ads, it's because many people will view the site at resolutions higher than 800 wide. We designed for a width that is the lowest common denominator. This has nothing to do with what editor we used, it's a simple design principle that many, many other professional sites follow as well. Since we designed using a variable width in the past, we ran into many issues with how the pages were displayed. We wanted consistency.

The issue of finding reviews will be addressed, you can be assured of that. But the design isn't something I have the ability to change. There were many designers involved in the new layout, and the decision was made to go with a fixed width. Not everyone will like it, but we ask that you help us find other ways that we can improve the site, as the design likely won't change much - the functionality however, probably will - and that's where you can help us.

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">

I would say short-term goals are:

* Enable searching of new PC games only.
* Enable alphabetised searching.
* Get rid of the god-awful "next 50, next 50, next 50" tedious searching method.

Longer-term goal maybe:

* Create fully functional PC games ONLY portal with all the news and polls and features of the old site but in the new look.
</div>
Number 1 and 2 are possible, but it will take some time to implement. With 11 other review sites, our small engineering team must prioritize tasks in a way that will benefit all sites, or the company as a whole. Since these changes are needed mostly on the gaming site, it may take a little while for them to get developed. Be assured, I'm pushing hard for it though. Number 3 on your short term list is not very possible. All reviews are dynamic now, meaning they're pulled from a database. When you try and pull anything more than 50 or 75 products and all their attributes from the database, it will cause the site to crawl. The same goes for the reviews - that's why there is only 5 at a time showing. We can (and probably will) increase that number, but we can't show them all at once anymore (unless we change things drastically).

The long term goal you hit right on the head. That is the goal. As I mentioned before, this is something that isn't needed on our other sites as much as it's needed on VGR, so it may take some time to get implemented.

[wolfbiscuits]

Moya, SBS, Jeremy, I'm more than concerned I'm already drifting off. The new reviews section which I read daily for about 2 years is now pretty bad having all platforms jumbled together but when you actually click on one to read the review it's still not clear which platform the game is for? and the game listings with the "shop now" icon opposite each one just reminds me of Amazons consumer reviews where the review is secondary, really puts me off. I've churned out about 15 reviews in the past 18 months but I cant say I'm really compelled to write any more in the present format.
I'm not actually one of those who hates console games just for the hell of it, I dont have a problem with them, it's just that I dont play any so already I'm spending time on other forums which deal exclusively with PC games because I want news and buzz about PC games which sadly seems to be slowly dying here.
The forum it's self is another problem, it looks great sure, but theres only about 10 regular die hard posters, you're all great to talk to but wheres the rest? I dont include myself as a complete regular as I'm still a noob compared to you guys who've been around for 4 years or so. If this site is the oldest and still the biggest for amatuer reviews which I think it is should'nt there be about 10-15 topic posts per day at least? thats just the PC section, theres days when I see 1 new topic post, I take my hat off to you guys who make an effort to put something up on a daily basis.
I know the board is new, well one month old now but this problem goes back to the last 4 months or so on old board, it needs stimulating big time, why are people not posting? if admin does'nt see that as a concern, they should, you cant force them to post but you need to draw people back for a better reason than changing their avatar.
What happened to the news? I know Jeremy has been sick as I've just read the posts but what about releasing the news on this board as a topic post on a daily basis? at least it's another topic post plus it draws comments, remember the old board had a mini-forum just for the news comments, also it introduces new games to discuss, the regulars are talking about their own favourites up and coming (obviously) but news on every PC genre might draw more comments.
Just some thoughts but I'm pretty concerned and I honestly dont think it's all just cosmetic ie: just the page layout.
I really used to like visiting this site, especially the uber-dabates on the old board but I'm finding less reason to come back as time goes on.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I know the board is new, well one month old now but this problem goes back to the last 4 months or so on old board, it needs stimulating big time, why are people not posting?
I really used to like visiting this site, especially the uber-dabates on the old board but I'm finding less reason to come back as time goes on.</div>

Well, PCGR used to run print-ads in PC Gamer magazine, and that's what brought me here initially. The reviews kept me coming back. However, when those ads were running, man the whole site was booming.

As for people not wanting to get into it these days, not alot of people have the will to get into it like the old days, I suppose...

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"it's a simple design principle that many, many other professional sites follow as well."

Uh, what exactly is the defining definition of professional then? Any site that makes profit? Personally, I think the term should be applied to sites that cater to the user-base, have a nice-pleasing design, and have everything at your fingertips for ease of use, rather than worrying about variable-width versus fixed settings, and keeping up with the jones'. Anyhow thanks for clearing that up, and responding...

PS- You know that the forums are still fixed width though, right? It was to these pages I was using as an example and which my comment about ADS in the gutter I was referring to were formed. No wonder everybody seemed a bit confused there for a moment... You're telling me it's optimized for resolutions of 800w, when here I am staring at a full screen version right in front of my face viewed at 1024w! I was gonna grab some screenshots, but then realised that only the forum was antiquated. HAHA :eek:

[Suicides-by-Steve]

<div class=\"smallfont\">
Key issue #4: When overhauling something as large as PCGameReview.com and VideoGameReview.com, conduct a best practices study. Canvass your users to find out what they like and dislike about the site.
</div>

You know, back when Eric was running the site, he did exactly what you said... I received a phone call one day a couple years back (of course after giving my permission), and I was interviewed by the website development team, who asked me what I liked, disliked, and wanted to see in the future... Hell, I almost forgot that... surely this isn't the results of my answers! Like Dobian, yourself, and I at one point or another, the navigation, sterile looks, distinct seperate platform pages, and an updated Review of the Day section badly needs to be implemented, pronto.

Though I have already found the PC Game homepage (well VGR- PC)- I'm still being posed with that ridiculous Playstation question! Wait, if this was a true homepage, and not just a renamed, filtered template, shouldn't I be getting asked how soon I'll be going out to buy Half-Life 2? :eek:

[Chris]

<div class=\"smallfont\">"it's a simple design principle that many, many other professional sites follow as well."

Uh, what exactly is the defining definition of professional then? Any site that makes profit? Personally, I think the term should be applied to sites that cater to the user-base, have a nice-pleasing design, and have everything at your fingertips for ease of use, rather than worrying about variable-width versus fixed settings, and keeping up with the jones'. Anyhow thanks for clearing that up, and responding...

PS- You know that the forums are still fixed width though, right? It was to these pages I was using as an example and which my comment about ADS in the gutter I was referring to were formed. No wonder everybody seemed a bit confused there for a moment... You're telling me it's optimized for resolutions of 800w, when here I am staring at a full screen version right in front of my face viewed at 1024w! I was gonna grab some screenshots, but then realised that only the forum was antiquated. HAHA :eek:</div>
Yes, the forums we were able to simply stretch the width to 100% of the screen, but the rest of the site was fixed to 800 wide. vBulletin made it easy to do so. We have one graphic designer and needed to streamline the design of all 11 of our sites as much as possible for future development. I'm not going to be able to point out each and every example of why fixed width makes site development easier on us (and other site designers), nor do I feel I should be expected to. As I said before, if there weren't reasons to go to a fixed width on our end, we probably wouldn't have done so. It simply made sense for us, and since many other large scale sites do it as well, we felt that the community would be able to adjust to it without much difficulty.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>
I'm not going to be able to point out each and every example of why fixed width makes site development easier on us (and other site designers), nor do I feel I should be expected to.</div>

I never asked you to... :p As a certified web designer myself, your explanations are skimmed through at best... Like I said, the confusion stemmed from Hieremais saying one thing, while I was looking at something totally different, while soon afterward you decide to jump in, and then say you don't feel like you have to explain everything! LOL :confused:

[Lara]

As requested by Chris, please post any new questions/comments to this thread about the site change.

Official Site Change Thread - feedback and complaints here please

Post all feedback here in this thread!!!!!

http://forums.videogamereview.com/showthread.php?threadid=393