Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Add:

Digits should be taller than letters, so that things like "12x10 board" aren't difficult to read.

Yes, that seems important.

I don't understand why you bother with typography while the overall layout of this website still so utterly sucks...

You have to avoid hyperbole and remember that your perspective is not mine. If you are dissatisfied with something, you should provide a detailed bug report, not vent your emotions.

The current font is one called Average. The Q's tail goes underneath the next letter a little bit, but it is not too bad. This has only one style. So italics is just slanted. Here is some boldface. It otherwise seems to fit my criteria.

Average and Malabar look so much like each other, I couldn't tell that the font was changing when I resized the window. I had to meticulously compare their characters, find some that were different, then enlarge the text enough to make comparisons. When comparing them at the same size, I can see that Malabar is bigger and darker, which makes it good for the body font on mobile devices, but not so good for it on desktop monitors. Since Malabar has been my main font for reading books on my Kindle, its resemblance to the lighter, smaller Average is a good reason to stick with Average on the desktop. [Note: Unless you have Malabar installed, you will see Volkov when you shrink the window.]

If you are dissatisfied with something, you should provide a detailed bug report, not vent your emotions.

Well I thought I did. Let me try it with a (window) screenshot then:

When the viewport is too narrow for the left side bar (as on my Linux VM), the first two screenheights of every page have no content, just ~70% blank space and ~30% ads, and you have to scroll down two screens to even see what the page is about. Because an ad is placed in an area with a completely wrong aspect ratio for it. I do't see why we would need an extra ad above the article content: there already is one above the menu bar (fortunately of a more suitable shape).

Apart from this being very annoying when you switch between pages, it also creates a large distance between the menu bar and the place where you have scrolled to when you want to use it. I think it is pretty ridiculous that there is anything between the menu bar and other content. The whole idea of having a menu bar is that it should be in easy reach. So if displaying adds has so much priority over displaying content that multiple screenheights of advertizement are a necessity, the menu bar should at least be below it, near the actual content.

This is also very sloppy:

Why does the header ad jump to below the logo at this total width. There seems to be plenty of room to display it. And if not, it should shrink rather than jump.

And how about this beauty?

I cannot replicate this, but this is what I would expect to happen if the globalindex.css file wasn't loaded and working. Have you done anything to disable or interfere with this site's CSS? If not, I need precise details on the conditions under which you find this happening.

The top banner shares the space with the logo and the share widget, and it will jump down if squeezed out. For what's happening in the other picture, I will need precise details on the conditions under which it is happening. This includes the browser, the OS, the screen width, the window width, the viewport width, and anything going on that could be affecting the CSS.

The top banner shares the space with the logo and the share widget, and it will jump down if squeezed out.

Well, that sucks. Page banners are not supposed to do that. Especially since in the shown case the banner is not 'squeezed out' at all: there is plenty of space to display it. The technical reason for it to happen just shows the poor design. If you want the layout of the header to change under width-pressure, it would make more sense to move the share widget to under the logo, as the banner is usually higher than logo and share widget together. Using floating style is just the wrong techology for formatting page headers. The elements should be forced to stay side by side, and in extreme cases shrink to fit or summon a horizontal scroll bar.

For what's happening in the other picture, I will need precise details on the conditions under which it is happening. This includes the browser, the OS, the screen width, the window width, the viewport width, and anything going on that could be affecting the CSS.

Well, I don't mess with the CSS, and it is very surprising you cannot reproduce this effect.It is not like I have to go looking for these things; they jump you all the time when using this website. The "ad below menu bar" happens on every page except some submission forms (which have no ads, header and menu bar at all), whenever I narrow the viewport to the point where the left side bar closes. It doesn't seem dependent on the OS or browser used, (the screenshot was taken with FireFox 10.0.1 on Ubuntu Linux, and the viewport size should follow from the image width, which is demagnified by a factor 2), and is likely caused by faulty or missing style definitions for the side bars in the various width ranges where they occur.

The relevant part of the 'Page Source' causing the "large white space" screenshot is below, and the page looks just like what you would expect if there isn't a special style definition for the rightcol or leftcol ASIDE; it would just display it above the ARTICLE, as that is where it appears in the source:

<DIV CLASS="middle">
<ASIDE CLASS="leftcol">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
amazon_ad_tag="chessvariants-20";
amazon_ad_width="300";
amazon_ad_height="250";
amazon_color_background="EBECDF";
amazon_color_border="AFA938";
amazon_color_logo="504706";
amazon_color_link="2B5A6B";
amazon_ad_logo="hide";
amazon_ad_title="The Chess Variant Pages Gift Shop"; //--></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/s/asw.js"></script><script language='JavaScript1.1'>
    document.write("<sc"+"ript language='JavaScript1.1' src='http://rover.ebay.com/ar/1/711-53200-19255-217/1?campid=5337821335&toolid=7115320019255217&customid=&mpt=" + Math.floor(Math.random()*999999999999) + "&adtype=3&size=300x250&mpvc='></sc"+"ript>");
</script>
<noscript>
    <a href='http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-217/1?campid=5337821335&toolid=7115320019255217&customid=&mpvc='>
        <img border='0px' src='http://rover.ebay.com/ar/1/711-53200-19255-217/1?campid=5337821335&toolid=7115320019255217&customid=&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER]&adtype=1&size=300x250&mpvc=' alt='Click Here'>
    </a>

</noscript><SCRIPT>
if (window.canShowAds === undefined) {
    document.write(`<FIGURE>
<FIGCAPTION>Musketeer Chess Fortress and Unicorn Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces</FIGCAPTION>
<A HREF="http://www.houseofstaunton.com/unicorn-and-fortress-chess-kit-with-black-natural-plastic-pieces.html?___store=houseofstaunton_en&acc=eb163727917cbba1eea208541a643e74"><IMG SRC="http://www.houseofstaunton.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/small_image/267x240/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/a/marshall-overlay_4.jpg" ALT="Musketeer Chess Fortress and Unicorn Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces" TITLE="Musketeer Chess Fortress and Unicorn Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces"></A>
</FIGURE>

<FIGURE>
<FIGCAPTION>Musketeer Chess Dragon and Spider Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces</FIGCAPTION>
<A HREF="http://www.houseofstaunton.com/spider-dragon-chess-kit-with-black-natural-plastic-pieces.html?___store=houseofstaunton_en&acc=eb163727917cbba1eea208541a643e74"><IMG SRC="http://www.houseofstaunton.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/small_image/267x240/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/a/marshall-overlay.jpg" ALT="Musketeer Chess Dragon and Spider Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces" TITLE="Musketeer Chess Dragon and Spider Kit Bundled with HOS Luxury Plastic Chess Pieces"></A>
</FIGURE>
`);
}
</SCRIPT>
</ASIDE>
<ASIDE CLASS="rightcol">
<iframe src="//rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?o=1&p=14&l=ur1&category=topgiftideas&banner=1PS7NTZH9Z597A9KKWR2&f=ifr&linkID=dba816b2b2d0685889719280db7301d6&t=chessvariants-20&tracking_id=chessvariants-20" width="160" height="600" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe></ASIDE>
<MAIN>
<ARTICLE>

Here is another (rather extreme) example. This time from FireFox 55.0.3 (32-bit) on Windows 8.0, with a 1366px-wide screen (maximized window). I glued 3 screenshots taken at different scrolls together:

It seems like two ads, partially covering each other, are inserted between the menu bar and the article text. Likely the upper one is the "leftcol" ASIDE, and the lower, narrower one the "rightcol" ASIDE.

The page http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/index.html had an incorrect link to the style sheet. This page was two directories deep, but the link went back only one directory. This is now fixed.

It appears that the comments page currently has some content on it that prevents the main section from growing narrower. I don't know if there is a way to test for this in CSS.

The page http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/index.html had an incorrect link to the style sheet. This page was two directories deep, but the link went back only one directory. This is now fixed.

I was wondering about this, because seeing two ads was a-typical. I still see one ad, though, in the submission form I am now typing in...

The problem with linking can be prevented by avoiding relative path names in intra-site links. Nowadays I always use "/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js" for the link to the JavaScript in interactive diagrams, because the "../membergraphics/..." did not work for some subjects deeper in the tree (I think it was Centennial or Omega Chess). And when you view them in isolation you are one level from the root.

BTW, I noted that page sources tend to be very bloated. There is always an enormous amount of JavaScript related to the menus, which furthermore is full of intra-site links that also has the server URL in it. If you ever want to reduce the bandwidth this site consumes (by a factor 10 or so), this would be a good place to start.

It appears that the comments page currently has some content on it that prevents the main section from growing narrower. I don't know if there is a way to test for this in CSS.

What can that be? The screenshots I posted are not that wide, this is why I demagnified them. The page source I posted as normal text, so that is can be wrapped over lines at any space. For me the text width just adapts when I narrow the window, until I try to shrink it below the width of the screenshots. Then a horizontal scroll bar appears.

When I look at my list of authored items they are showing "Missing description"

How do I amend this?

When I look at my list of authored items they are showing "Missing description"

How do I amend this?

Add descriptions.

I have added overflow-x: auto to the main section when there is an ad on only one side. This seems to stop overlap problems when it otherwise can't narrow enough.

Since this site has much more bandwidth available than it actually uses, I'm not going to gut functionality to save on bandwidth.

to Fergus

Yes I will add some descriptions at least

But where do I go to do this?

Go to the bottom of each page, click on Links, and enter a description.

Thanks, I'll come back and perhaps add some when I can

It doesn't matter too much as I write descriptions within the page anyway

Thanks for the answer

Since this site has much more bandwidth available than it actually uses, I'm not going to gut functionality to save on bandwidth.

Wow, I would never have guessed that, from the number of times that I get the message "This server is currently not available due to maintenance or capacity problems". Or from the time it requires to load pages...

And why do you think it would require "gutting functionality"? Proper design is usually not an enemy of functionality.

Wow, I would never have guessed that, from the number of times that I get the message "This server is currently not available due to maintenance or capacity problems". Or from the time it requires to load pages...

If the server ran out of bandwidth, you wouldn't be getting any message from the server, and pages wouldn't load at all. Also, multiple servers just call themselves the server. There is also the MYSQL server, the Apache web server, and the PHP server. I'm not sure which one is giving this message, but I have since optimized a lot of PHP code and MYSQL queries.

Between using WIFI and being on the other side of the Atlantic, there might be a slowdown for you. I often find that WIFI is slower than a direct ethernet connection to the router.

And why do you think it would require "gutting functionality"? Proper design is usually not an enemy of functionality.

I have no idea what improper design you have in mind. The code you mentioned serves a purpose, and getting rid of it would be gutting functionality.

Especially since in the shown case the banner is not 'squeezed out' at all: there is plenty of space to display it.

The banner is centered on the screen, and as soon as there isn't room for it to remain centered on the screen between the logo and the share widget, it drops down lower.

It doesn't matter too much as I write descriptions within the page anyway

The link description gives someone a reason to visit your page, and a description on the page itself would not serve this purpose.

I have no idea what improper design you have in mind. The code you mentioned serves a purpose, and getting rid of it would be gutting functionality.

Well, I wasn't suggesting you were just using that code as a filler to drive up hosting costs. But if the code to serve that purpose is nearly the same for nearly every page, the proper design would be to locate it in a separate file, and just put a link to that file in all those pages. Then the code would need to be loaded only once for every user visiting the site, and all pages he would access for a long time to come would use the version cached in his browser.

What do you think requires more functionality on this page, the menu bar, or the interactive diagram for Golden Age Chess? Now take a look at the page source. The diagram makes up about 25 short lines of that, the menu bar about 500 sometimes excessively long lines (line 11-59 for in-page style definitions, and line 80-513 for the HTML and JavaScript). The HTML source of all pages here seems about 10 times as long as one can reasonably expect from their content.

The banner is centered on the screen, and as soon as there isn't room for it to remain centered on the screen between the logo and the share widget, it drops down lower.

Indeed. This is a bit like explaining to a person whose house you just set on fire how chemical reactions with oxygen work, so that what he is seeing is a quite natural phenomenon, and nothing to worry about.The point is of course that it is wrong to require that the banner is centered when there is obviously not enough room to center it in-line with the logo. What is so important about centering that banner that justifies it taking extra vertical space pushing content off screen? Who would die if it was right-justified instead?

No website I have ever seen does this with its header. Have you conducted a poll under users, and did the majority all say "Wow, this is really how a page header should look! Amazing no one else ever invented such a beautiful layout!" when you presented them with the header screenshot I posted? I would be surprised if you could find anyone who didn't think it sucks big time. Worrying about how much a descender of a capital Q protrudes under these conditions seems a very strange priority.

to Fergus

Is it simple and straightforward to use the link description

I don't kow how to use it - perhaps someone could tell me