1) The current Kissu layout can be adjusted to have the banners be bigger and still on the side.

When the page size gets to 860PX wide it will automatically transition into a variant of (2). It already does this

2) This is what automatically happens when a window gets too small, but instead use it all the time and make the banners bigger.

Perhaps they won't be a full 300px size, I think this design puts too much emphasis on the banners rather than a page's contents.

3) and finally the toughest is to move the wide banners into the middle of the page and use the style in 2) with only the small banners.

I like it how it is now.

>>7642
I prefer this. Puts more emphasis on the banners but that also makes it easier to appreciate them and also probably would encourage more people to make them.

I like >>7642, but I also feel like it might make kissu look too much like other imageboards, which was something vermin was trying to avoid with the redesign.

>>7646
Guess that is a fair point... in that case 1 might be best since it still puts emphasis on both banners

>>7646
well my opinion is more of >>7644, but I think (1) works well on a monitor >1450PX wide so it could be possible that the header section of boards uses 4 stages of style sheets


A) >1450PX == (1)
B) >840PX == (Existing)
C) >480PX == Existing (2) style
D) <480PX == Existing (3) style that will now try and place the banner somewhere inside of the threads [if this is even feasible with the site's design]

I agree with both
- Having the banners be larger (that is, at their original size)
- Having the banners side-by-side as they are now.
This suggests (1), but I don't really like how it looks. I think this comes down to the weird asymmetry of the two banners and the +News. Perhaps it would look better with the left banner moved down a bit? Not sure.

>>7649
it's an issue with screensize. I made the sample at 1048PX which doesn't flatter that design very well.

It's only been like 30 minutes since I asked the question but it's sounding like having the style transition with screen width will work well >>7648

If it were me, I'd put the banner in the sidebar, either by shrinking the banner down a bit or making the sidebar a little wider. It gives the banner added emphasis, while still keeping the layout distinct from other imageboards.

P.S. in the case of someone In the case collapsing the sidebar, it would transform into >>7642, which is more acceptable since rolling up the sidebar already makes it look more like a traditional imageboard

>>7651
did this idea in the past and it didn't come out in a way that I like it. The homepage, fileboard and error pages still use it, though the fileboard is it's own UI page >>>/f/

I'm fine with 2 and 3, but I have to vote against 1. I think it looks absolutely hideous.

>>7650
My opinion, including wanting original-sized banners, was and is based on a size that would fit into (B) of >>7648 . I can't even read the text on some of the banners as it is. So when it comes to my own preferences, I disagree. (But I can't disagree very strongly, since the result of >>7648 would just be the status quo).

Separate to the particular style, I dislike designs that jump around based on screen size; one jump for quite small widths along the lines of 4's design is an exception. My own web browser is of different widths depending on the situation, and the inconsistency is grating. At least this would be a fairly small change between sizes.

Placing the banner inside a thread for (D) sounds like a bad idea... but I'm not sure what situations would lead to browsing Kissu in <480px anyway.

>>7654
As an addendum, I think (2) (after that, (3)) with full sizes beats the current design with small sizes.

>>7654
>but I'm not sure what situations would lead to browsing Kissu in <480px anyway.
mobile of course

Concern with full sizing them is that (1) doesn't work when doing this which means that it's either a pick between status quo or (2) since (3) feels like a design nightmare I would only force onto mobile users because otherwise there's no way for me to even use the small banners on them, mobile just uses wide.

Currently the small banners are 79% of their normal size. You haven't complained about the transitions that already exist so I doubt my execution of the concept is as big an issue as other sites make it. Possibly doing my suggestion >>7648 except the status quo is now 85%(255px) and the transition into (2) happens sooner than it does currently.

But designing this aspect of the site properly is coming across as very complicated and perhaps controversial, to which not doing anything is what I feel like doing... or in the least making small changes to the status quo until people stop having issue with it.

You know I haven't checked but do banners change when you hit the update button and there's new things to load?

>>7656
>mobile of course
I guess. I don't think I've ever had a phone under 480px wide that would also be capable of browsing the modern web.

>Concern with full sizing them is that (1) doesn't work when doing this which means that it's either a pick between status quo or (2)
How does it look with the banner not aligned to the top left? (E.g. so the bottom of the two banners align, or perhaps something else). Really I think what makes it look ugly is the presence of the +News jutting into the banner area.

But maybe this was all just a pointless distraction, since I still prefer your current image or (1) to the current situation.

>You haven't complained about the transitions that already exist
Well, I try not to complain, and I hope my post didn't come off as complaining. You're right that the transitions currently in place either don't bother me much or I haven't encountered them. Without knowing what's there I couldn't tell you which it is.


Thread's only been up for a little, would probably make sense to wait for opinions of people not here right now. I'm only voicing my own opinions.

>>7657
(´・ω・`)

>>7658
looks like it's an on reload thing

>>7659
all websites... basically... have an alternative set of rules that transition under that size. 4chan has one that the current is loosely based on.

>>7659
>How does it look with the banner not aligned to the top left?
like a cursed feature that won't work no matter what you do
https://imgur.com/MP7ycCR.png
https://imgur.com/W7HBFQX.png
removing the +News doesn't do anything.
>I still prefer your current image
Quotelink it?

>Well, I try not to complain, and I hope my post didn't come off as complaining.
I don't view complaining as a negative.

Shrink the browser width progressively and the position of the header items will change. When the browser is at it's smallest it will probably trigger mobile mode.

>I'm only voicing my own opinions.
I've had a few, but you've written the most so I'm responding the most to it. You're the initiator of the issue too so you probably understand what people's problems are better than others.

>>7663
>all websites... basically... have an alternative set of rules that transition under that size. 4chan has one that the current is loosely based on.
>Shrink the browser width progressively and the position of the header items will change. When the browser is at it's smallest it will probably trigger mobile mode.
Oh, I see it now. Yeah, my browser doesn't get small enough to trigger those, so it doesn't affect me. (Typically range from 1000-2000px wide, looks like the midsize transition is at 850px? Larger than that I don't see any real change).

>like a cursed feature that won't work no matter what you do
Hmm, I see what you mean. Bottom aligned... was not a good thought.

>Quotelink it?
Of the left-aligned banners my preference goes >>7641 > >>7656 > current.

>You're the initiator of the issue too
I may be misreading this, but in case you think I'm the one who brought up banner size in #qa, that was someone else. I'm just jumping into the thread.

>>7665
yeah, the 840px change is part of a series of small steps to try and make this part of the UI look better and I'm looking at:

100% at wide resolutions(wide resolution TBD)
>>7656 in >840px resolutions
>>7642 in >480px resolutions
Modify mobile to do >>7643 in mobile resolutions

So if you have a window thats a bit smaller than others you might get a banner that's smaller by about 50-60px, but otherwise if it's your primary, wide browser then it will be full.

>I may be misreading this,
guessing based on the authority by which you speak about an idea.

>>7666
Basically, Since there's no decisive winner I think I won't fully commit to something massively different from status quo but continue adjusting it until it works or there's a breakthrough idea on how to place them.

>>7668
I think that's for the best. It's pretty good as is. All it needs is some subtle tweaking.

>>7658
>>7662
Banners on the new UI change upon a new post. On the vichan UI, they change on refresh.

Always preferred change on refresh.

>>7686
There are some technical reasons why it changes on new post, but those reasons might not exist anymore.
So basically I'll think about the pros and cons.