Thread: User Gallery...
Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery... We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I thought we had sooooo many more then that :)
Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It doesn't fit very well in netscape -Egon On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at > http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery... > > We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I > thought we had sooooo many more then that :)
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It > doesn't fit very well in netscape If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one :) > -Egon > > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > > Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at > > http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery... > > > > We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I > > thought we had sooooo many more then that :) >
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column the content. -Egon On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > > > Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It > > doesn't fit very well in netscape > > If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount > of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one > :)
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column > the content. You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to dosnload then the current coniguration... BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is missing... > > -Egon > > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > > > > > Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It > > > doesn't fit very well in netscape > > > > If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount > > of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one > > :) >
Scrolling horizontally isn't as good as scrolling vertical. I would suggest to have one entry over the next so I can see all information all together on the scren. And of course leave out rows with no content. -Egon On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > > > Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column > > the content. > > You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going > further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each > table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to > dosnload then the current coniguration... > > BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't > use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is > missing...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
> Scrolling horizontally isn't as good as scrolling vertical. I would
> suggest to have one entry over the next so I can see all information all
> together on the scren. And of course leave out rows with no content.
I, personally, do not like the idea of the length of the page that
would result in switching to your above format...and, so far, I've had one
private email from someone stating the same thing :(
If you wish to take the information that is there and come up with
a sample of what you are thinking, that reflects the current layout,
please feel free to do so...but, the current layout requires much less
'real estate' then what you are proposing, and, IMHO, scrolling
horizontally or vertically means the same thing...
>
> -Egon
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
> >
> > > Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
> > > the content.
> >
> > You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
> > further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
> > table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
> > dosnload then the current coniguration...
> >
> > BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
> > use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
> > missing...
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote: > > > Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column > > the content. > > You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going > further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each > table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to > dosnload then the current coniguration... > > BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't > use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is > missing... The list is nice, though I agree it needs to be reduced in width. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
At 21:07 +0300 on 17/6/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount > of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one > :) Here's a suggestion: Put the "date added" as a separate line, and make the table contain only the other columns. Like this: Date added: June 19th, 1998 Title Company Category More bla bla bla bla xxx xxx xxx xxx ... Date added: June 18th, 1998 Title Company Category More bla bla bla bla xxx xxx xxx xxx ... This adds very little to the length of the page, and saves a very wide column which is very sparsely filled. Herouth -- Herouth Maoz, Internet developer. Open University of Israel - Telem project http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Herouth Maoz wrote: > At 21:07 +0300 on 17/6/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount > > of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one > > :) > > Here's a suggestion: > > Put the "date added" as a separate line, and make the table contain only > the other columns. Like this: > > Date added: June 19th, 1998 > > Title Company Category More > bla bla bla bla > xxx xxx xxx xxx > ... > > Date added: June 18th, 1998 > > Title Company Category More > bla bla bla bla > xxx xxx xxx xxx > ... > > This adds very little to the length of the page, and saves a very wide > column which is very sparsely filled. I tried this out, and didn't like the way it was looking, *but* I took another persons suggestions and reduced the date to mm/dd/yy, which tends to at least shrink that column somewhat...