how about wrapping hyperlinks to browser width so we dont have to scroll left & right after a long hyperlink

expample:http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=95133&page=2

[Edited on April 8, 2003 at 4:28 PM. Reason : example]

4/8/2003 4:24:31 PM

how about you get a l33t video card!!1

4/8/2003 4:36:09 PM

youre right, i could do 43340x1200!!!!!!!11

4/8/2003 4:52:21 PM

4/8/2003 4:59:01 PM

another example:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=102879

am i the only one that finds horozonatal scrolling obnoxious

5/1/2003 2:48:31 AM

Man, those links don't even take up 1/4 of the page on my screen. Where would it all end. On mine it's not a problem but on your screen, it obviously is. Many people here probably are either using the university computers or have one of their own so there is no way to account for average size and therefore no way to fairly decide on a length to cut on.

5/1/2003 3:20:53 AM

the 'fair' way is to conform to 800 x 600. yeah, most people use at least 1024 x 768, but until the standard is changed, 800 x 600 is the "official" size.

5/1/2003 4:22:45 AM

what about shortening them as a thread is posted or truncating them to the lenght the text is wrapped too when a page is loaded

like: http://www.ebay.com/ebaymot...

5/1/2003 1:09:38 PM

What about people using something like http://tinyurl.com to shorten urls...

5/1/2003 1:13:14 PM

Quote :

"Here's an idea. At B-Boys, our forum software allows you to add parameters to your tags. For instance, we allow URL masking like so: [URL=http://www.thewolfweb.com/]The Wolf Web[/URL] renders as The Wolf Web, or just a vanilla [URL]http://www.b-boys.com/">B-Boys, our forum software allows you to add parameters to your tags. For instance, we allow URL masking like so: [URL=http://www.thewolfweb.com/]The Wolf Web[/URL] renders as The Wolf Web, or just a vanilla [URL]The Wolf Web, or just a vanilla [URL]

[Edited on May 1, 2003 at 1:38 PM. Reason : thx]

5/1/2003 1:32:12 PM

Quote :

"the 'fair' way is to conform to 800 x 600. yeah, most people use at least 1024 x 768, but until the standard is changed, 800 x 600 is the "official" size."

There is no official size. People are free to use as little as they want and some still do.

5/1/2003 2:39:23 PM

get paul to help you scroll back and forth

5/1/2003 3:41:46 PM

why dont i

[Edited on May 1, 2003 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/1/2003 4:30:57 PM

Quote :

"People are free to use as little as they want and some still do. "

of course people are free to use what they want. but any good web designer will make their page to where you don't have to scroll if your resolution is 800 x 600 (on that note, most teachers at ncstate suck at making webpages). even this site does it with as much content as it has on the front page, it just expands if you have a bigger resolution. not only do a lot of people still run at 800 x 600 (how I don't know) people with 1024 x 768 have toolbars, buttons, google/yahoo bars, history panes, etc. taking up room.

5/1/2003 7:23:42 PM

Quote :

"but any good web designer will make their page to where you don't have to scroll if your resolution is 800 x 600 "

But a truly excellent web designer will make a site that looks good in ANY resolution, even very small ones (handhelds)... 4.01 Strict!

5/1/2003 7:35:40 PM

well we all know truly excellent web designers are few and far between

[Edited on May 1, 2003 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/1/2003 8:53:34 PM

Quote :

"Man, those links don't even take up 1/4 of the page on my screen. Where would it all end. On mine it's not a problem but on your screen, it obviously is. Many people here probably are either using the university computers or have one of their own so there is no way to account for average size and therefore no way to fairly decide on a length to cut on."

damnit, i wasnt very clear

click on the links to see an example of what i mean

5/1/2003 8:55:16 PM

Ah, yes. Those are annoying.

5/1/2003 9:38:18 PM

why don't you just click the link instead of reading the whole thing

5/2/2003 1:19:59 AM

?

5/2/2003 1:30:22 PM

why do you need to read a long link if all you are gonna do is click it? big deal if it stretches the screen and messes up the rest of a thread

5/2/2003 11:04:02 PM

oh jesus, you know i dont need to read the link, just that i would like to read the rest of the thread w.o horo. scrolling

5/2/2003 11:08:51 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=107023&page=1

^click that link, try & read the whole thread...

now fix it

[Edited on May 18, 2003 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ^]

5/18/2003 2:14:54 AM

I have no problem reading that thread.

5/18/2003 1:30:48 PM

do you like the horizontal scroll???????????//

5/19/2003 4:11:25 AM

I get no horizontal scroll on that page. The link is perfectly formatted to fit my screen...

5/19/2003 12:47:04 PM

its not reading the link that is the problem, but reading the rest of the thread...

your resolution is...

5/19/2003 3:24:00 PM

none

5/19/2003 4:19:22 PM

My resolution is very large compared to most, but even when I resize the window to 800X600 window size, it still breaks the link up and does not horizontally scroll, until I get to the width of the AdSpace and TWW logo combined.

5/19/2003 5:39:43 PM

yea im a dumbfuck, apparently IE will wrap them

5/19/2003 6:23:52 PM

It really depends on the spacing. Perhaps some browsers decide differently than others where they can split a line.

5/19/2003 7:41:25 PM