bpn Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 To me this new implementation seems like a waste of valuable vertical space, why cant it be integrated in the header like it was in 3.1?
Marcher Technologies Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 To me this new implementation seems like a waste of valuable vertical space, why cant it be integrated in the header like it was in 3.1? Actually, completely discounting the admin_bar of 3.1.4, at default the vspace is the same. ipb3.1.x header==100px 3.2.x header==64px+header_bar==36px===100px count the admin_bar of 3.1.4 and the 3.2 header+usernav actually takes up less vspace.
bpn Posted September 18, 2011 Author Posted September 18, 2011 I have a large monitor and can manage, but I'm concerned about our members, 50% of them use 1280x720 resolution, which means that the top row occupies 5% of the total vertical screenspace and more of the effective browser space. Really cannot understand why they went away from that elegant solution used in 3.1.
Lewis P Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Vertical resolution used is exactly the same as 3.1, as Marcher pointed out. It's no different in that regard - and a much cleaner solution as well!
bpn Posted September 21, 2011 Author Posted September 21, 2011 Well, the reason height is the same is that the header itself is shortened... Due to logo constraints we have to keep it the same height as in 3.1. Anyone aware of a 3.2 compatible skin that use the 3.1 style usernavigation panel?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.