fullscreen.
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- believe
so what?
- kpl0
what? so!
- jevad0
so it's not needed - and if you think it is when you're doing a site - give me a fucking choice - don't just take my whole screen over with no warning.
- ********0
yeah exactly jevad
- Mimio0
It's a little ironic when the site is fullscreen and the designers is using barely legible 8pt & 7pt type. If you're going to take up that space, use it -- activate it.
- CyBrainX0
I had one on my site, but dropped it because so many people hate it. I never had a problem with it though.
- paulrand0
*cough* me too
- believe0
right..
i see the reason for choice.
but if someone visits YOUR site, and you don't like the browser taking up YOUR screen real estate...
is it yours or theirs?
it seems the developer should have the right to decide if his/her site(environment) should be surrounded (coexisting with) some other object irrelevent to its design.
ie. if every picture had the same frame.hurry this up:
http://www.io2technology.com/
- CyBrainX0
If you are trying to entertain people, you don't want to aggrivate most of them. That's why I don't do it anymore.
Personally, I have a much bigger gripe with people who put music or audio in their Flash with no off button. I listen to music on iTunes most of the time. I was hoping Macromedia would have put a default OFF button in the contextual menu for the plugin.
- unknown0
Come on Jev..automatic full screen so fooking cool :)
- pixellove0
exactly. so what.
- witch0
the same goes for screensavers.. How dare they take up the whole screen when I stare at the screen of my copmuter motionless.
give me a freaking choice. don't invade my space.
- corin0
believe, i think the reason for ppl's problem with fullscreen is a control issue. The web is not tv or an art gallery, people use the web for far more reasons than just looking at it or appreciating it, and a person's browser is not necessarily just for surfing. Try looking it not so much as a browser being a frame for a picture, as being the eyes you use to see that picture. Surely a designer has no right to remove your skull in order to ensure that it doesn;t interfer with your peripheral vision. I know that sounds stupid, but i guess my point is that although it may not be relevant for other objects to surround a particular work, those objects may well be relevant to the other 10 things that a person is doing on the web at the same time, so giving people a choice is more considerate. That said, i've been thinking about putting heaps of fullscreen stuff on my site in an attempt to be inconsiderate to users, so in the end it does depend on the context.
- corin0
just to prove my point, i think the dior site is well impressive (chok full of glam) and its fullscreen...
- corin0
i fear i might be having a conversation with myself here, but looking at that dior site really made me think about what believe said, this site really does benefit alot from its fullscreen nature and the fact that it removes the clutter of the browser from its interface... hmmm, might have to start rethinking my own semi-religious beliefs about usability for the rest of the evening
- ********0
i have a bigger problem with slow flash pre-loads. At least I dont give up with full screens...
But a warning would be nice.
- believe0
word up colin.
i fully believe in 'user control' of all aspects when it comes to your computer.
i brought it up cus it gets dissed.i use ie6 and used with windows xp has the F11 key for fullscreen. has a site ever asked you to hit your F11 key for optimal experience?
- SP™0
is this rude?
http://www.spent2000.com/covers/…
- jevad0
no - its fucking sweet though!
- SP™0
i think it is less intrusive. stretch to fit.
- scarabin0
my first response to a fullscreen site is horror: "wtf?! where did my- oh yeah. fullscreen."
followed by anger and disgust: "what kind of designer relies on stupid pointless script tricks?!"