Userscripts.org

Unfortunately the server had a hiccup paging me it was down. Because I'm feeling very sick today and was working too fast I accidentally deployed the new version of the code I have been working on.

There are still lots of places where fonts are too small, and I'm still not happy with small details, but it is a huge step forward from the previous liquid layout. Previously a footer and other site improvements were very complex because of absolute positioning of the sidebar.

Anyway. Probably lots of issues. Feel free to fix them in a userscript and I'll start patching once my head isn't pounding.

Looks interesting... although quite narrow on my 16x10 aspect ratio monitor... but I'll adapt :) Get some rest and thanks.

Jesse Andrews wrote:
There are still lots of places where fonts are too small

Tidy!

While I don't expect or even think this script would be a good idea to enter the normal (logged-in user) site layout, I just added my long missed "new script" link in the user menu. Yum! :-)

I hope you get well soon, Jesse! :-)

Aside from some weird font sizes (h1's are huge!), I think the biggest problem is the absolute width of sections such as content, root, right or nav. I use a 1280x1024 resolution, so I get big chunks of whitespace at each side. How about using percentages units for those sections?

Using script at http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/34698 in the short term (and maybe longer) till things settle in. :)

Stylish(will edit this as the site changes):

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("userscripts.org") {
pre,code,.editbox h5,#nav{font-size:12px !important;}
#root{width:90% !important;}
#content{width:78% !important;}
#right{width:18% !important;float:right !important; padding-left:0px !important;}
.posts{width:100% !important;}
#nav{width:90% !important;}
h1{font-size:16px !important; font-weight: bold !important;}
.editbox a {color: #0073BF !important;}
#script_sidebar {padding-top:0px !important;}
}

Greasemonkey equivalent with the power of XML, JavaScript and of course together as E4X ;)... oh did I mention JSON? ;)

// ==UserScript==
// @include        http://userscripts.org/*
// ==/UserScript==

GM_addStyle("" +
  <><![CDATA[
    pre, code, .editbox h5, #nav { font-size: 12px !important; }
    #root { width: 90% !important; }
    #content { width: 78% !important; }
    #right { width: 18% !important; float: right !important; padding-left: 0 !important; }
    .posts { width: 100% !important; }
    #nav { width: 90% !important; }
    h1 { font-size: 16px !important; font-weight: bold !important; }
    .editbox a {color: #0073BF !important; }
    #script_sidebar { padding-top: 0 !important; }
  ]]></>);

Marti wrote:
Greasemonkey equivalent with the power of XML, JavaScript and of course together as E4X ;)

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
If you're not annoyed by the flicker

Marti wrote:
I would assume that Stylish loads before DOMContentLoaded

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
No need to reload the page. It is way better...

@Jesse
The contents of #reply are wrapped with div.container but in #edit they are wrapped with div.contents

Marti wrote:
I can do that with Firebug and Web Developer if I'm designing and prefer this better way

I think it looks pretty good. I don't like the link color though. I liked the old #0073BF color.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
Oh well. At least I tried too convert you lol

JoeSimmons wrote:
I don't like the link color though. I liked the old #0073BF color.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
Too bright for my taste. I like the new darker color.

JoeSimmons wrote:
It's hard to read the darker color on the reply div with the Userscripts Comment Helper script installed where it has all the links.

Marti wrote:
WHOA! That is hard to read.

#reply a, #edit a {
color: #0073BF !important;
}

@Jesse: Why does #script_sidebar have a padding-top of 100px? I removed it in my style, I don't like it really.
And could you make the a:visited a little darker? It's hard to tell sometimes if I've visited a link already or not.

If you're not annoyed by the flicker, then yes, it is equivalent.

especially on slow machines... there's definitely something of a waiting period sometimes

@Jesse: Off topic, but is there any way we can be notified if our scripts get reviewed?

JoeSimmons wrote:
...is there any way we can be notified if our scripts get reviewed?

Avindra Gool... wrote:
especially on slow machines...

JoeSimmons wrote:
@Jesse: Off topic, but is there any way we can be notified if our scripts get reviewed?

That is partially done - I'll re-add to the list to finish up

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
@Jesse
The contents of #reply are wrapped with div.container but in #edit they are wrapped with div.contents

I think that should be fixed now

Marti wrote:

JoeSimmonswrote:
...is there any way we can be notified if our scripts get reviewed?

http://userscripts.org/home/settings/notifications