Which version of the bB page is better?

[+Random Terrain]

Update:

 

Got enough votes. Test pages deleted. Thanks.

 

 

I tried using links that look a little like buttons for a while, but it was getting on my nerves. While I'm getting rid of the button look, I thought I'd make a test page or two where the table of contents fills the main text area instead of being in a small area on the left side.

 

Link #1 (thin table of contents on the left)

 

Link #2 (table of contents filling the main text area)

 

Link #3 (table of contents filling the main text area with boxes)

 

 

Please let me know which version you like best. I like #3.

[+Gemintronic]

I chose #1 as it looks the most like what I'm already used to. Eventually the links towards the left run out and it becomes option #3 anyway.

[+Random Terrain]

A while ago a guy was complaining about the squished text in the middle (until you get down below the table of contents). I figured I'd do a test to see if having no squished text would be better.

[Mr SQL]

#1 is a more useful reference format for developers; I think that makes it better

[Impaler_26]

#1 is the best looking and easiest to use IMO.

[+Gemintronic]

A while ago a guy was complaining about the squished text in the middle (until you get down below the table of contents). I figured I'd do a test to see if having no squished text would be better.

 

It is a valid complaint - at least to those encountering it for the first time. I find that focusing on the text in the middle is actually more readable. Also, it forces the author to keep things simple.

[+Random Terrain]

Check out this version:

 

www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-batari-basic-commands-test3.html

 

It's the same as the link #1, but I added boxes to it.

[+Gemintronic]

Check out this version:

 

www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-batari-basic-commands-test3.html

 

It's the same as the link #1, but I added boxes to it.

 

The old style was definitely non-standard but extremely readable. Without the "buttons" around each entry my eyes have trouble focusing.

[+Random Terrain]

The old style was definitely non-standard but extremely readable. Without the "buttons" around each entry my eyes have trouble focusing.

 

What about the frequently used section and index on the right side of the page? Is it better with or without the button look?

[+Gemintronic]

What about the frequently used section and index on the right side of the page? Is it better with or without the button look?

 

I've never used the Frequently Used section. I usually do a search on the keyword needed. So, if I wanted to look up rand and the handy rand chart I usually do the CTRL+F thing and type "rand". Just how I personally do things.

 

The button look is universally good - left and right side. I equate it to the text mode help in QuickBASIC. The uniform text placement and size in QB Help really helped me scan through items I wanted info on. The best you can do in web format is the button look.

[+Random Terrain]

OK, I'll keep the button look on both sides. Thanks for the votes and input theloon, Mr SQL, Impaler_26, and anyone else who voted. The test pages will now be deleted.

 

 

 

I've never used the Frequently Used section. I usually do a search on the keyword needed. So, if I wanted to look up rand and the handy rand chart I usually do the CTRL+F thing and type "rand". Just how I personally do things.

 

That frequently used link section personally saves me a lot of time. When I'm working on a program, I use at least a couple of those links many times a day. I added it mostly for me, but I figured some bB users might think it's useful too.

[SeaGtGruff]

It is a valid complaint - at least to those encountering it for the first time. I find that focusing on the text in the middle is actually more readable. Also, it forces the author to keep things simple.

On the other hand, it doesn't work so well if you're printing the web page. Just today at work I printed out a web page that had some info I needed for a Payroll project, and the printout took 7 pages when the material would have easily filled up only 1 or 2 pages if each of the margins hadn't been wider than the actual text-- the text filled up less than one-third of the page horizontally! It looked great on the screen, but was a horrible waste of space and paper when printed out. (And sadly, the page didn't have a "printer-friendly version.") On the other hand, I printed another page from the IRS web site that looked more intimidating on the screen, yet when I printed it to paper it took up less than 2 pages because of the font size and the formatting of the text.

[+Gemintronic]

On the other hand, it doesn't work so well if you're printing the web page. Just today at work I printed out a web page that had some info I needed for a Payroll project, and the printout took 7 pages when the material would have easily filled up only 1 or 2 pages if each of the margins hadn't been wider than the actual text-- the text filled up less than one-third of the page horizontally! It looked great on the screen, but was a horrible waste of space and paper when printed out. (And sadly, the page didn't have a "printer-friendly version.") On the other hand, I printed another page from the IRS web site that looked more intimidating on the screen, yet when I printed it to paper it took up less than 2 pages because of the font size and the formatting of the text.

 

I don't think print vs web page is a war you can win. The best solution I've seen is web pages that have a "printer friendly" version.