New Site Theme

By Shamus Posted Sunday Feb 8, 2015

Filed under: Notices 132 comments

Nine and a half years. That’s how old this blog is. And since day one, I’ve always used a theme where the text was 600 pixels wide. At first I used a stock theme. Then I got into coding my own theme. But the column width stayed the same. Partly this was because I didn’t want to disrupt the layout of old posts where images floated to the left or right. Partly it was because mobiles were getting popular and I wanted my site to be readable on a mobile without (shudder) horizontal scrolling.

But the day has finally come. The old small-image posts now represent a tiny percent of the site content, and I’m okay if they look stupid. Mobiles now have 1080p resolution, so we have more pixels to work withI have no idea how anyone is supposed to read text that small, but apparently people do it all the time. Dang kids.. So the blog is getting a little wider, which will hopefully waste less screen space on the 3-meter jumobotron monitor you’re probably using.

Over the years I wasn’t diligent about documenting the appearance of the site. For the record, this is what the site looked like yesterday. And for those of you reading this in the future, here is what it looked like after the change.

Changing the theme is pretty disruptive. This is a big, complicated site with deep archives and lots of features. Let me know what I broke.

 

Footnotes:

[1] I have no idea how anyone is supposed to read text that small, but apparently people do it all the time. Dang kids.



From The Archives:
 

132 thoughts on “New Site Theme

  1. Asimech says:

    You’ve linked twice to the exact same image.

    Edit: Okay, I guess I should also actually comment on the topic.

    I preferred the narrower text box because it aided readability. There was less distance your eyes had to “scroll” to get to the beginning of the next line meaning smaller eye movements and less chance of jumping to the wrong line.

    Also I have my web browser windowed so the old theme didn’t really waste my screen space, but that seems to be rare outside of people with jumbo-tron monitors.

    Also on smart devices the “pillar of text” isn’t really a problem because they tend to allow easy rotation. If the user can read tiny text they can hold it vertically and see more content without scrolling, if they want merely small text they can use it horizontally. The wider the content the smaller both are.

    However a quick check on my phone reveals that the text size is fine both ways.

    That said, I browse mainly on the desktop and there, well.
    No sir, I don’t like it.

    1. Zak McKracken says:

      I don’t find the new width particularly hard to read but I, too, tend to make my browser windows tall and slim for reading.

      So adaptive width would be preferred, but I think that may be a little more difficult to achieve (and to work reliably cross-platform… My favourite way of doing this will keep the sidebar constant while adjusting the width of the central box, down to a certain minimum, below which the sidebar disappears and you get only the central thing, as wide as the window will allow it to be. This may or may not be easy to do with Shamus’ WordPress thing.

      1. ET says:

        Ditto on the maximum width for eyeball-scrolling. Also the adaptive-minimum-width. I don’t want to have to strain my eyes tracking to the next line.

        1. Shamus says:

          This is very odd to me. I’m currently using 800px width. Don’t most sites have at least that much? My Escapist columns (and therefore all of The Escapist) are nearly 1,000px.

          Do you have this scanning problem elsewhere?

          If not, then it’s probably not the column width. It could be font size or spacing or somesuch.

          1. Eric says:

            Maybe it’s the font size? I find your site uses a slightly larger font than a lot of sites like The Escapist do, so it feels like there’s less per line?

          2. Jarppi says:

            You are using some kind of sans-serif font which seems nonideal for wider columns. I think both font and font spacing are not suitable for the new theme. Escapist suffer from similiar issue so don’t look there for help. I don’t know what fonts are available to you but if you want to keep this wider theme, I would recommend to try out different font families to find a suitable one. Personally I always prefer serif over sans-serif fonts for both body and title text due to its (arguably) better readability. However, those fonts are often designed to look good at 12 pt so you propably would have to change that also…

            Edit: I did a bit of research. Your site width vs. Escapist. Your site has now larger text width than the Escapist.

            1. Daemian Lucifer says:

              I agree with the two of you.Slightly bigger and slightly more spaced out letters would do the trick nicely.

          3. CJ Kerr says:

            People who care about typography have long held that the ideal column width is about 60 characters, or at least in the range 45-75. Your new theme is around 90-100 characters.

            Don’t look to the Escapist for help – all of their typographical defaults are awful.

            1. *nod* Once you go beyond 80 characters in width your eyes need to do a lot more sideways travel, we do after all have a pinhole focus point in our eyes.

              Some flexibility should exist though, adaptive web designs provide for a min and max size.
              Thus where possible one should specify em units rather than px, this allows those with High PPI (DPI) displays to see the page without the text being microscopic. (and those who prefer large fonts due to vision problems can view the site with large fonts).

              Possibly a width between the old and current would be more ideal.

              BTW! The category tiles at the top, maybe it would be better to use a auto-scrolling bar (with arrows at the far left and right) that cycle through the categories.
              That way adding or removing or changing a category image won’t require redesigning the page header each time.
              It’ll also more easily adapt to whatever width you want that bar to be.
              You also can halve the height compared to what is there now.
              Those with the taskbar at the bottom and lots of junk at the top of their browsers will have 1/3 or even 1/2 of the top of the browsing area eaten up by the title and category bar (or is it “strip” ?)
              That bulldozer image could potentially be cut off at the bottom.

              In my case I’m lucky as I see the first paragraph of text as well (I have my taskbar on the left of my monitor and my browser is minimalistic at it’s top so about 90% of my screen height is the browsing area.

              Shamus, maybe you could set up a temp email and let folks email you screencaps of how the site looks to them?
              And instruct them to use Alt-PrtScr as that will capture only the browser window (unless folks have a fancy webpage capture plugin obviously in which case they should use that).

              With a bunch of captures from desktop and other devices you’ll see how it looks on all of them.
              Then do some tweaks and ask folks to email another temporary email address. Why another? Well folks are “slow” and will still be emailing old captures to the old email even as you have a new site up.

              Might be a nice experiment, you might see a lot of weird displays of the website.

              1. ET says:

                Speaking of the buttons at the top…maybe move them to the left side?
                I mean, we’ve got tonnes of width, but you’re using up all this vertical real-estate with these gigantic buttons. ^^;

            2. Shinan says:

              Yeah I don’t like to complain and maybe it’s just a thing I need to get used to but I did feel like it was difficult to read the post for some reason. Like it was just too wide and my eyes had to work a bit extra to get to another linebreak.

            3. Jarppi says:

              I think you are up to something here. Now that I look this page again I realize I have to refocus my eyes around 2/3rd of the line, which is around 60th character. This (and the fact that before the update I had no problem to read this site) suggest that narrorwer column would be easier to read.

          4. ET says:

            I found out while messing with various websites, and my e-reader, that there’s several things which contribute to the ease or difficulty of line-tracking. Each of these probably affects people to differing amounts:
            – maximum line length
            – spacing between lines
            – the font itself, including bold/italic/etc
            – left-aligned vs right-aligned vs justified text
            – amount of space between words (including extra space for justified text, above)
            – colouring of alternating lines of text, or graphical lines separating text (this looks ugly, but is a feature in some…text editors?)
            – etc
            All of the above can help mitigate too-long lines, but lines can be so long that even these mechanisms don’t help anymore.

          5. Steve C says:

            Print newspapers use columns for this reason (among others).

          6. Kacky Snorgle says:

            Joining the chorus of griping about the wide column.

            I keep my browser windows much narrower than my monitor because I often have lots of stuff open at once. The more pixels my monitor has, the more windows I can see at a time–I hate it when site designs try to demand a large fraction of my monitor space (and, yes, more and more of them seem to do this). I’d recommend sticking to the 600px column. Serious question: what benefit do you see in making it wider?

            (Might also be good to reduce both the width and height of your header–the header now occupies half my window, besides running off the right edge. What with the enormous header and the gigantic bulldozer image, the actual content of your post begins approximately 1.4 window-heights down the page, which is a bit ridiculous.)

            Change is bad, stay in the last millennium, get off my lawn. :)

            1. Shamus says:

              “Serious question: what benefit do you see in making it wider?”

              About 80% of visitors are using some sort of desktop, and for them the content of the site covered less than a third of the screen, with the rest being mostly dead space. Now, some of those people use partial-desktop width windows. But those windows will all be greatly varying sizes and there’s no way I can target them unless I wanted to make some sort of dynamic-width monster. (NO! That’s a nightmare.)

              So this layout makes more sense on what is likely the overwhelmingly most common setup. As long as it doesn’t break on mobiles and is readable, then it’s all good. Designing specifically for mobiles is out. They’re too varied in design, and there’s too much unpredictable sorcery going on under the hood. (The problem people are reporting where the header doesn’t cover the entire width of the screen is a good example of “helpful” mobile browsers breaking the rules and screwing me over. I have no idea how to even BEGIN to fix that.)

              1. Wolf says:

                Seems like you broke the golden admin background for your posts.
                Edit: Fixed now.

              2. Shamus says:

                Hang on here, I might be getting terminology confused.

                I see “dynamic width” and “adaptive”. I wasn’t paying close attention here and was assuming this was all the same thing. So to be clear:

                1) Adding a variable-width content system where making the window wider makes the content column wider is RIGHT OUT. That’s a nightmare on my end. When I upload screenshots, I don’t want to have to wonder what sort of mysterious things will happen to them on every possible column width. I like screenshots to fill the column. Hard to test, annoying to make posts look right, and I’ll end up doing tons of work for a minority of readers.

                2) Making it change the layout for mobiles is reasonable. I’m sort of doing it now, although I doubt it’s perfect. (I still get horizontal scrolling on my phone, even though it’s just scrolling through useless whitespace. No idea what the problem is there.) On a mobile, it SHOULD limit the whole site to a width of 800 and drop the sidebar to the bottom.

                I don’t know which of those is adaptive and which is dynamic but #1 is too much trouble and #2 is desirable.

                1. adaptive/dynamic/responsive basically means the same thing for most people that I’ve noticed at least.

                  But yeah in the case of automatic width I understand.
                  It may be possible for the comment boxes to break the column and go beneath the sidebar but that would look odd/ugly for most I suspect.

                  These days I’d say you should design for a certain text width (try not to go wider than 80 characters and not narrower than 40 character lines per column).
                  And make the artwork (and pixel sizes) around that.

                  Then use Responsive Webdesign (there’s that magic word) to make use of media queries for min width ans max width and aspect ratio to let a browser switch CSS code depending on the display of the user (profile, landscape, high pixel width or small pixel width, etc.)
                  A common thing is (like you said) to make a sidebar plop below the main content etc.
                  Other things are providing alternate images or resize images differently.

                  Making sure to use box-sizing: border-box; may make things a little easier (see http://quirksmode.org/css/user-interface/boxsizing.html for more)

                  And here’s info about media queries http://www.quirksmode.org/css/mediaqueries.html (min/max/aspect etc)

                  No idea how willing WordPress is to play ball on all this though.

              3. CJ Kerr says:

                “About 80% of visitors are using some sort of desktop, and for them the content of the site covered less than a third of the screen, with the rest being mostly dead space.”

                The best solution to this is the opposite of what you’ve done. Leave the text column the same width, but move the navigation to the left and right of the text column to make better use of the horizontal space.

                Incidentally, if you’re not going to do that, a “back to top” button would be nice, since all your nav is up the top.

                1. Mr. Son says:

                  I’m going to have to agree with this post. This font size + column width makes it more difficult for me to read. My eyes scan back and forth more and that’s a problem with my dyslexia.

                  Shrink the column back down and put other things in the empty space beside it if feels wasteful.

                  Honestly, better wasteful than more difficult to use, in my opinion.

                  1. Rack says:

                    I’d have to agree too. I’m on a 1080p screen and everything fits fine, it’s just irritatingly wide. It’s only a small nuisance but I would prefer 2/3 of the screen doing nothing than making it harder to read.

              4. Jonathan says:

                I still run a 17″ crt at 1024×768.

                I’ll upgrade my monitor when I can get a 4:3 that’s not backlit by florescent lights for under $150.

                1. Bryan says:

                  I don’t mind the fluorescent-light backlighting, but 4:3, OH MY GOODNESS YES.

                  Stupid 16:9 and 8:5 crap these days. (Yeah yeah whatever, “16:10”.) If I wanted to watch a movie it would be in a window anyway. The aspect ratio of the monitor’s native resolution matters not one whit.

                  I still want a 1600×1200 screen. Unfortunately they don’t come in a small enough physical size to fit onto this desk…

                  1. Asimech says:

                    Man, I didn’t miss the 4:3 days until I got an e-book reader that had that ratio on it’s display (well, I suppose it’s 3:4 really) and realised it’s actually pretty dang nice. I blame the fact that I had to use 5:4 monitors for so long. I think I’d still prefer a 3:2 monitor, but I suspect that’s even less likely than finding a 4:3 non-CRT monitor.

              5. krellen says:

                I have a desktop, yes, and my monitor has at least 1000 px of horizontal space (I run my browsing monitor at 1152×864), but I don’t actually want a single part of a site I’m viewing to USE all of that space at once. White space can be quite nice; alternatively, the rest of the space can be used for non-content things, like navigation or a floating sidebar or something.

              6. Kacky Snorgle says:

                “About 80% of visitors are using some sort of desktop, and for them the content of the site covered less than a third of the screen, with the rest being mostly dead space. Now, some of those people use partial-desktop width windows [but] this layout makes more sense on what is likely the overwhelmingly most common setup.”

                I would have guessed that a substantial majority of the desktop users would have partial-width windows, so that a window the size of a desktop monitor isn’t actually all that common a setup. In that case, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to compare your site’s design to a typical screen resolution–the rest of the screen isn’t “dead space”, it’s “all the other windows”. Maybe I’m less typical than I think, though. Are you able to collect stats on the size of browser windows that site visitors are using?

                If designing a variable-width site is infeasible, then the best solution would be to keep the width small, so that it will fit the largest variety of different window widths. Failing wide (horizontal scroll, reading difficulty) is worse than failing narrow (some blank space at worst), so err on the side of narrow.

                Would be my thinking, anyway. Then again, I sure don’t know anything about website design….

          7. Zak McKracken says:

            I think you should interpret all comments regarding font size, line spacing and column width roughly as you would want people to interpret your critique of a game you actually really like …

            This is all fine for me, but of course there’s always a way to improve everything, and someone who’s fluent in the whole graphics/web design and typography will certainly have something to say, which you may or may not want to put into action, depending on how much it bugs you and how much work it’d be.

            I’d be fine with decreasing column size a bit (though the old one was on the shorter end of the good range), my desktop shows a rather large (but still fine) font but all browsers support scaling these days.

            … but then this site’s design shouldn’t be decided by popular vote in the comments, so: The current design is definitely not worse than the previous, so go ahead.

      2. Asimech says:

        My personal (possibly out-dated but certainly limited) experience with variable sizes is that they’re a lot of effort to get working properly. Aside from various browsers treating it slightly differently Shamus would also have the added problem of picture size. He clearly prefers them to take the full width of the text box meaning that there would need to be some on-the-fly resizing or low-res alt images for various widths and those are usually more trouble than worth.

        If I was given the option of current width of JavaScript/whatever based automatic resizing of images I’ll rather take this, they tend to act up too much to be of much benefit to me but they’re almost definitely going to be extra work for Shamus.

        1. Eric says:

          Adaptive width is a good solution, but I do wonder if it’s really the ideal solution – especially on larger screens, often you get huge, overlong lines of text, or tons of blank space on the edges of the page. It seems like doing a separate mobile vs. desktop site is still the way to go for best results.

          Frankly I just use Play Newsstand for reading most web sites when I’m on my phone or tablet (as RSS feeds). The formatting there does all the work.

          1. ET says:

            On larger screens, you can resize your window, though. Take for example, Wikipedia. I often find that its lines are too long, but since it’s got adaptive width for its text, I can just resize the window until it’s comfortable to read.

    2. CJ Kerr says:

      Ditto – the line lengths were basically perfect before, now they’re about 20 characters wider than optimal.

      Also, it’s worth pointing out that mobile browsers lie about their width – there’s a scaling factor (exposed to CSS as the Pixel Ratio) which tends to be 2.0 or 3.0, causing both 720px and 1080px devices to appear 360px wide (or 640px wide in landscape).

      Also, media queries. Sizing things on your desktop site to be a convenient width on mobile is silly, when you can easily make your stylesheet responsive instead.

  2. Zak McKracken says:

    Oh, and I was hoping for an adaptive width. My phone (Opera on Android) deals with it nicely, though, and the desktop has no problems anyway.

    The annotations seem to work better now (I don’t need to click on them anymore but clicking anywhere closes them (Firefox/Linux), which did not use to work.

    And I like the new header.

    For some strange reason, the twitter box doesn’t work on Firefox (though my phone displays it alright. May well be my own problem, tough.

    … will the comments stack deeper, now?

    1. Shamus says:

      The comment stacking is as deep as WordPress allows. I’ve tried everything, but you can’t increase it with changes to Theme or with plugins. Apparently you have to go into the core and edit WordPress yourself, and that’s not worth it. :(

      It’s crazy. I see no reason it should be difficult to change. I shouldn’t even need a new theme or plugin. I should just have the ability to dictate the max depth directly.

      1. Zak McKracken says:

        Agreed.
        The maximum stack depth is neither 1 nor 0, so it should be a variable :)

        1. The odd think with the stacking is that wordpress do not technically need to know it either.
          As long as wordpress knows that “this” comment is related to “that” comment then that is all you need.
          Now during the display you could just display it all flat and use javascript to just indent and color stuff and create the nesting/stacking.

          That should speed up the wordpress rendering of a page as a lot of the processing is offloaded to the browser.
          No idea if any wordpress plugins does that though, I’m not a wordpress guy.

          I’m (slowly) redesigning my own site (from scratch) when I have the time and I’m completely dumping anything that is dynamic, I’ll be using a backend to edit/handle the content but once “published” the content (and hence the page) will be fully static so no database calls are done at all just a plain file request which is lightning fast (mostly limited by disk access/seek speed only).
          This also allow proxy cache hinting so if there are any proxies between my future website and the browser then the pages can be easily cached (they are static after all) possibly in memory even which is as fast as you can get.

          In addition pages will be served pre-compressed using gzip which saves some CPU (not that much though, but it is some) which reduces any processing latency to a minimum.
          Also gzip reduces the size of a page (and potentially .js and .css files) a lot thus saving bandwidth and latency there as well.

          (I’m basically trying to make the most efficient/fastest (yet insignificant) website on the net possible that is hosted on a shared webhost server.)

      2. Guest says:

        It should be right there in the theme files. Most likely you’ll need to change the “max_depth” argument in the wp_list_comments function call.

        I’m not entirely sure it will solve the problem, but it’s worth a try. Maybe you’ll need to override the limit in a config somewhere too for it to take effect, who knows.

    2. Dragomok says:

      I’m on Firefox right now and I can see the twitter box just fine.

    3. Humanoid says:

      I think Adblock might be blocking the Twitter widget.

      Another random thing, the width of nested comments is running right to the extreme right margin of the parent comment, I think there used to be a little space there. Also the “Leave a Reply” interface seems squeezed right up against the left margin, though I don’t quite remember if this is a new thing.

      1. Zak McKracken says:

        Oh, it’s Disconnect.
        What a shame. It says it’s blocking one request from Twitter, and if I allow that, I immediately get 28 new ones which are then automatically permitted. :(

        Anyway, the link is still displayed and works for me, no harm done

      2. Felblood says:

        The ad blocking software that they use at my office is blocking it now (What? I am on break.), and it didn’t used to do that.

        I don’t know if this if related to the theme change.

  3. Dragomok says:

    This caught me off-guard, because I was writing a comment with the page in old theme still in my browser, posted it, and suddenly the comments were wider.

    I was wondering for a second if I just had gone out of some change blindness.

  4. Humanoid says:

    Looks pretty good, and less scrolling when browsing comments makes me happy.

    Few things though:
    – The photo of the Witch Watch there is pretty dodgy, the blurriness is giving it a weird kind of “this is a 3D image” effect, and it’s actually pretty disorienting.
    – The site banner/header thing is pretty short compared to the rest of the navigation, with barely any white space (well, black space in this case) above it.
    – Broken image at the very bottom of the page, the one that links back to the front of the blog.
    – Minor quibbles – the style of the section headers on the right sidebar (Twitter, Categories, etc) don’t really match the rest of the theme; and I kinda miss the half-blue, half-yellow site banner, which I thought was eye-catching.
    – Oh, one more thing I noticed just before hitting the submit button: the picture of the random dice at the end of the comments is left-aligned somewhat awkwardly, relic of the 600px width.

    1. Warrax the Chaos Warrior says:

      I’ll add one to your list of minor quibbles.

      I’m on a 27″ 1080p monitor, which is kind of a low resolution for that size but very common these days, and the TWENTY SIDED banner at the top has a noticeable amount of “jaggies” on all the curved and slanted surfaces. Probably a relic of it having been a smaller image at some point.

  5. Zukhramm says:

    My test for any site design is how it looks on half-screen (because I’ve got some programming or twitter or another site on the other half). Verdict: A little wide. It’s probably fine because making room for the sidebar is a waste once you scroll past it. The only really big problem is that comments and pictures snap right to the left edge instead of having a few pixels of space. That feels very cramped.

  6. MelTorefas says:

    *loads site* EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT WHY IS EVERYTHING DIFFERENT THIS IS HORRIBLE oh wait no, this is actually kind of nice!

    ^ stream of consciousness

  7. ET says:

    While you’re in the guts of your website, how much work would it be to replace the comments system? Not rewrite it yourself – that’d be an insane amount of work; But just jam in an existing system. Like, Reddit’s stuff is now open source, and it has lots of handy features:
    – easy to keep track of which comments you’ve already read
    – already-read comments are folded down to a single line, so you don’t have to scroll like crazy to get to the bottom
    – the tree-structure of the comments is utilized in the folding of comments, further reducing scrolling effort

    1. Zukhramm says:

      Wait what are you talking about? How do I find those features on Reddit? Because sorting through the comments you’ve already read is impossible for me and the biggest problem with that site, they might not even be in the same order the next time you look at the thread!

      1. ET says:

        OK, I think I imagined bullet point #2…which therefore makes #1 false. I just habitually fold comments I don’t care about. Since it’s a tree, this will cut out huge swathes of comments that I’d otherwise have to scroll through. So, it’s still a lot more usable for me, compared to Shamus’ comment system.

        Don’t get me wrong; I love Shamus’ site. Heck, it’s only because I spend so much time on here that I want to reach into its guts and fix it. :P

        1. If you are suggesting redit or similar then Shamus might as well just plop PHPBB3 in a iframe in place of the comments. (probably a wordpress plugin to do that with PHPBB3)

          Or simply use PHPBB3 instead with a portal theme/layout instead of wordpress (a tad painful to move posts over to PHPBB sure, but possible and there are scripts/tools to do that).

          WordPress started as a blog publishing/CMS backend, never intended for comment discussions.

          Now PHPBB3 and similar software are ideal for discussions (they are forum software after all).

          There comes a point where the existing comment system is what you have to accept unless you want to fully replace it with a better one, there is only so much fiddling about one can do with the current one. (is my guess anyway)

  8. Eruanno says:

    Hmm, I’m noticing that when viewing the new layout on an iPad it aligns everything super hard left to the point where it looks like stuff is almost disappearing out on the left side of the screen. Also the background in the top bit gets strange and unaligned.

    Screenshots:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/skwvc6n78y0rj78/Foto%202015-02-08%2017%2026%2010.png
    and
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/370iij2yg9z4t64/Foto%202015-02-08%2017%2026%2023.png

    1. Viktor says:

      I’ve got the same issues. The screenshots don’t do it justice, text is starting so close to the edge of the screen that my eyes keep skipping the first couple words in a line. Desktop is fine, but I come here on an iPad a lot of the time.

      1. Eruanno says:

        Ah, yes. For some reason I’m dumb and didn’t include pictures of text alignment. Woops.

    2. Wilcroft says:

      Confirmed/Agreed on the iPad points. Also of note on iPad – the dark part of the title part doesn’t reach all the way across the screen. (visible in both of the above screenshots)

  9. somniorum says:

    I’m personally thinking it’s pretty nice. I do have a request, though…

    Under the “Even! More! Content!” section, you can find tons of neat stuff that probably a lot of people have missed or otherwise overlooked which has been buried in time, but I think you’ve got some great articles which aren’t listed in there… for instance, you have your critique of Fable 2 (which is what got me to this site in the first place), but not the analysis of Fable 1. Your write-up about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit 451 was neat, and I *loved* your autopsy of Hellgate: London (game upset me in so many ways).

    … I do know this would require a bit of probably tedious work you might not want to do, so I certainly wouldn’t expect you do to it – but if you DID decide to it would be neat I think. Idea was to just get a subsection collecting these analyses/autopsies into one section like Spoiler Warning is, with the larger, multi-page articles being listed first, and smaller one-off critiques listed at the bottom. You could collect all of that sort of stuff in there, including the Skyrim thieves’ guild quest, Silent Hill Origins, Thief, etc. A little less cluttered and these other articles won’t so easily get lost in time.

    Anyway, just a thought – again, cool if you didn’t want to do it, of course. : )

    1. KingJosh says:

      Also, I’m not seeing a “search” button. I’d forgotten about the Hellgate: London autopsy, and now I can’t see a way to find it.

      EDIT: I found it by looking under the “Game Reviews” category, and scrolling down a lot. The first one is here:
      http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1693

        1. KingJosh says:

          Thanks!

  10. Primogenitor says:

    If you zoom the page (e.g. to make the font readable on my 48″ jumbotron in the living room while sat on the couch) then the black background behind twentysided breaks and doesn’t extend to the scrollable to bit on the right. [chrome on vista (yes. vista, really)].

    Though really, thats pretty good compared to how badly some sites break when you zoom them.

    Oh, and the image link at the very bottom is broken for me.

  11. Soylent Dave says:

    I like it. I haven’t dug through the archives looking for errors, but the layout of the main page and each post looks better & I’m finding it easier to read (less scrolling is always good in my book)

    (although you’ve reminded me that I really need to get around to doing something similar myself, because I have tons of wasted screen real estate due to being similarly old-fashioned)

  12. I like it–but I also liked it fine before. So, I guess that means I don’t care. Register my total apathy.

    1. evileeyore says:

      I greatly enjoyed and prefer the way it was, but also greatly enjoy and prefer the way it is.

      Register my confused enjoyment.

  13. Daemian Lucifer says:

    Wheres the [1] thingy?It was there,and now its gone.Though youve finally fixed it to work properly(click on it to open,anywhere else to close).

    EDIT:There it is,the elusive little bugger.

    EDIT2:There is a slight problem with these annotations being fixed.You cant copy/paste them any more.Previously,you could select the text with and ctrl+c to copy it,but now it disappears as soon as click the button.So maybe the “broken” version was better?

    1. CJ Kerr says:

      For me it’s now “click on the number to open, click anywhere else to close”. Clicking again on the number doesn’t work, and that’s what I’ve gotten used to doing because it worked that way before.

      1. Shamus says:

        Crap. It’s supposed to be open-able again.

        I’ll see if I can puzzle it out.

        EDIT: Oh, I see. You can open it a second time by clicking the number, but you can’t CLOSE it with the number. Got it.

  14. Cuthalion says:

    Looks pretty cool. Works well on maximized FF on Win7, with 1280×1024 res. Too big to half-screen the window, but I guess I usually read fullscreen at home since my monitors aren’t huge.

    I’m glad you added the partial-blue back in to the banner text.

    I’m also glad you resisted the urge to join the hip new sites with a fullscreen banner you have to scroll past every article. And you also haven’t had a popover asking me to sign up for your newsletter. So that’s cool.

  15. Flavius says:

    For those of us still using 1024×768 screens, this format is rather awkward. The entire page cannot be displayed on the screen without resizing it (trivial, true, but annoying,) so that there is a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the browser. Also, there is no indentation in certain places, so the text touches the left edge of screen. Sorry, I realize that I am in the minority of your readers, and the issues I mention are small, but I thought it worth mentioning.

    1. Felblood says:

      I was starting to think nobody else owned one of those.

      I have one on my “spare” computer that I use when my wife needs the good one, and it’s getting to the point that all kinds of software take issue with it.

      You’re being asked to render to a square monitor, not build with stone-age tools. Figure it out, Starbound.

  16. Blackbeard the Pirate says:

    I just came on here to search for one of your old posts about Dragon age, and the search bar seems to have gone lol.

    The top seems a little busy, but you have a lot of different categories of stuff.

    Looking at the footer, are your old comics not hosted by Nu Mu any more?

    1. pearly says:

      Oh, ditto on the search bar. I was using that just the other day because I wanted to re-read the stuff about Jade Empire. That’s a super useful feature, given the size of the archives.

      1. KingJosh says:

        Also ditto. As I mentioned above, one of the commenters reminded me of an old Hellgate: London series you did, but I had trouble finding it. If I hadn’t guessed the correct category the first time, and known that the posts could be as far back as 6-7 years, I might not have found it.

        You’ve got too much awesome content here, Shamus. We need a search bar.

        EDIT: And you already fixed it. Thanks, Shamus!

  17. pearly says:

    Well, for one thing, the rows of buttons at the top aren’t the same width as each other, by a very small margin, and that’s going to make me go crazy after a while.

    1. Shamus says:

      You and my wife both.

      Fixed. :)

      1. pearly says:

        Thank you, that’s much better. Although it does draw more attention this way to how the buttons aren’t uniform in height… but. That’s just plain old pedantry.

        Edit: oops, they are uniform in height. I was looking at a chached version. My apologies. Thank you!

  18. Sure says:

    Looking at the website from my Galaxy S4 (1080x1920p) I’ve noticed that there’s overhang in the header. In either page orientation, the background does not stretch to the right edge of the screen to cover behind the logo and images.

    Aside from that, the website functions as well as it has been for me. Shame that on my desktop I can no longer view this site with just half my screen, but that just means less distractions from my distractions.

  19. Galad says:

    On my desktop it looks fine. The image of the bulldozer is very appropriate :)

    On my mobile ( an old-ish HTC Desire ) – it also looks fine. Dash two fingers on the screen over a small distance, in the directions of two opposite corners and your screen expands. After a little thinking (~20 seconds) your smartphone automatically adjusts the size of the font and the amount of text on one line, so you don’t have to scroll horizontally. Thus any resolution within sensible limits would be fine to read at any (again, within sensible limits) font size.

    Edit: Actually, on my desktop (and probably on the mobile as well), once I opened this article, the search bar, twitter comments, and so on site elements on the right side, they are alllll the way down there, at the bottom of the page, instead of on top, in the right, so I have this awkward two-page gap before the search bar, the patreon button and so on. That’s not supposed to be like this, I guess?

  20. Sleepyfoo says:

    On my laptop it looks fine, on my phone I can now see the twitter feed again : )

    I did notice on my phone though that the black background on the Twenty Sided cuts off after the E, leaving the D and the forums and about me buttons on a white background.

    Also, and this is just a personal impression, the Autoblography button seems disproportionately large, due entirely to the long single word title. I do not have a suggestion unfortunately.

    On the whole, I like this new layout. Haven’t looked at it on my mobile long enough for the complete lack of a left margin to register properly.

    Peace : )

    1. Sleepyfoo says:

      Also, Comments on my phone have a transparent background. I’m seeing text on dice rather than text on solid color.

  21. krellen says:

    On my tablet, the site looks great. On my desktop, however, everything feels far too large – I think it’s because of the relative size of the tablet screen vs. the desktop screen. My desktop monitor takes up far more of my field of view than my tablet screen does.

    1. Irridium says:

      Yeah, same here. It all just seems so… wide. Might just need to adjust since reading a site that has the same layout for six (more or less I think?) or so years and then seeing a different layout for it is rather shocking, but we’ll see.

    2. Jexter says:

      Seconded. On a Desktop, everything seems too large. I think it’s the font size – it’s wider than most other sites, and my brain protests the discrepancy with a mild feeling of disorientation.

      Zooming the view out one level of magnification from normal use seems to correct for the disorientation. Not coincidentally, this basically makes the site look exactly like it did before.

  22. Grudgeal says:

    And lo, it is the dawning of a new day.

    Figuratively speaking. It’s nine PM here. Looks fine, by the way, although the shiny new header will take some getting used to.

  23. spelley says:

    Hey Shamus, I’m actually noticing that my phone experience isn’t that great (which was the same as the previous theme). A good “Responsive” framework wouldn’t be too difficult to put in. Personally, when browsing on my phone I’d rather if there *wasn’t* a left sidebar and the content would cover 100% of the width in those instances.

    I’d ignore downsizing the images, just having them also be 100% of the width of the content on mobile. I could give you some tips and/or some links to some nice frameworks that would require only a bit of tinkering if done sparingly in the places it is needed. Just let me know!

    Otherwise, I actually really like the desktop layout of the site. Prefer having it use up more screen real estate on desktops.

    Also: centering the “TWENTY SIDED” image at the top for everything would be nice.

  24. Brian says:

    I’d also like to vote for a responsive theme. While yes, there are more pixels on mobiles, there are real problems on clicking links and reading. A good theme just should go “Oh, I think you have a monitor of ::mumble:: so the font should be ::mumble::”.

  25. Rick says:

    Love the post image for this one.

    I really like the new look of the comments :)

    Looks great on desktop and I hate to be that guy that comes in with negative notes about the project you just finished, but the sidebar isn’t dropping below on mobile anymore (and I can’t see a media query for it in your theme’s CSS).

    There’s also a small issue where your header background is only as wide as the screen, so if the window is narrow then some of the header has a white background.

    But I did see a “@xiewport { width: 1080px; }” rule that I’ve never seen before.

    I was going to quickly write up some code to throw the sidebar under the content on mobile but your main container and header aren’t responsive at the moment either and would require some tweaking in the markup to work responsively. I’m happy to help with media queries if you need it. I’m a web dev by trade.

    1. Shamus says:

      “There's also a small issue where your header background is only as wide as the screen, so if the window is narrow then some of the header has a white background.”

      How do I fix this? I have the width set to 100%. I can set it to a million percent to make sure it never get cut off, but that seems ugly, hack-ish, and probably incorrect. I’ve searched around, and I can’t find a solution that works.

      1. Rick says:

        The easiest solution is to update min-width on your .header tag to 1080px instead of 100%. It goes against the idea of being responsive, but the content in there (header image and image nav) requires that width anyway then it’s sort-of ok.

        This (and your #shell width) would need revisited if you updated the site with any media queries that allowed for narrower sizes.

        1. Shamus says:

          Beautiful, thanks! (Fix will be uploaded in a bit.)

          1. Rick says:

            No problem, I see you’ve also tweaked the sidebar to drop below now :) Nice.

      2. Rick says:

        Any progress past that (without moving to an actual framework) would mean:
        – updating the header nav to include alt tags on the images (to show instead of the graphics on smaller screens)
        – setting max-width on the header image, and maybe some others
        – go mid-ground (only let the site go as small as 800px) and set min-width on your #shell and .banner to 800px and max-width to 1080px
        – optionally (and reluctantly) trial letting content scale a little smaller (including scaling post images without wrecking the ratio)

        Honestly, Android does a really good job of re-flowing text on websites. iOS not so much though.

      3. Rick says:

        One more… your mobile code could apply to narrow desktop screens if updated to…

        @media only screen
        and (max-width : 1079px) {

        instead of

        @media only screen
        and (max-device-width : 768px) {

        … I’ll stop now :)

        1. Myself I’d look at aspect ratio media queries instead to handle portrait/landscape modes, but this all moves into responsive/adaptive web design territory which could be a pain with WordPress (and the theme and plugins used here).

          1. Rick says:

            I was going for easy drop-in changes… I don’t him to get tied up with his working-well-enough website so that we miss out on awesome content.

            Also, I’m not a fan of WordPress but have been forced to use it on occasion and mostly with your comments about issues with themes and plugins.

  26. Blake says:

    I always browse windowed, and I’m finding the new width a bit much to do it comfortably.
    I can zoom out the page a bit but then all the text is tiny so it still isn’t perfect.

    I don’t know how much is css and how much is html (and web development is certainly not a strong point of mine), but if most of the changes are css it’d be good if you could make it switch to the old style sheet if window width was less than some value.
    Otherwise if it’s possible to make the main body text squish if the window size gets too small that would be awesome (and if it makes image layouts look funny so be it, you could design it to look best running fullscreen and all the people that choose to multitask like me can deal with the sub-par layout).

    I also remember that once upon a time you had a style switcher drop down menu, so maybe you could resurrect that little guy to swap between ‘The Old Way’ and ‘The New Hotness’ or something.

    1. It’s not as easy as swapping colors (which is more or less what you are remembering).

      Now there are plugins and javascript snippets and embed css and whatnot.

      Framework sites tend to get really messy once you start adding plugins and “tweaking” things.

      I’m rather surprised Shamus hasn’t just created his own CMS by now though, he’s got the coding chops to do it, and ditched WordPress in favor of his own system.

      A lot of the issue with frameworks like WordPress (or PHPBB etc) is that if you need to update then you usually end up having to go through all the plugins and tweaks and so on.
      This is one of the reasons why so many old frameworks installations exist out there (with security holes galore) as many do not wish the bother to update (because shit breaks if they do).

      Frameworks are awesome if you only use the framework and any officially supported plugins and themes etc.

      There is always a tradeoff.

      Personally I think Shamus’ site has outgrown “other” frameworks and is worthy of it’s own TwentySided CMS and comment system.
      If Shamus has the spare time or wish to use his spare time for such is another matter.

      A lot of other people start out with WordPress or other blogging/publishing software, they pile on a few plugins and tweaks over the years then they advance to Drupal and other more general CMS and frameworks; while some end up creating their own instead.

      I have always coded my on site and stuff as no frameworks existed back when I started, webpage design software did not really exist or really sucked back then so I never used that either.
      I have sniffed at stuff like Drupal (and similar) though but never got around to trying them.
      I never saw a point to using WordPress as I can either code my own stuff or simply use a service like Blogger if I merely want to blog.

      WordPress is in a odd area, it’s neither a blog backend nor is it a general website backend, there are web stores out there that use WordPress and shopping cart plugins, when people do that my first thought is they are nuts and should have used Drupal or similar instead, heck if you only run a webstore then there are dedicated CMS frameworks for that.

      As Shamus mentioned in one of the comments here, there is no reason why WordPress should limit comment nesting depth, nor why it should require a plugin to do so properly either.
      By now WordPress should have evolved to do these things, maybe there exists a WordPress2 (not an actual thing) out there that does though *shrug*.

      The key issue is getting all those posts and comments and stuff moved over to another framework or CMS.
      A base installation is normally not an issue but if plugins are involved then any porting scripts really need to be aware of or support them, and that can easily become a nightmare.

      1. Rick says:

        If he has a sudden urge to move into web development (like he has with writing, music, and other pathways) then he might look into it. But given the issues he’s pointed out with MySQL and a few other things I doubt it’s something he’d dig too far into unless he was really driven.

        That, and unfortunately websites are big targets, so popular sites (which I’d say this is close, if not there) need to get security and stability right from the start… which means a LOT of learning and development before getting your minimum deploying product. Again, totally worth it if he develops a passion for it, but a nightmare if the site is purely a mechanism for delivery and community engagement that is already functionally fairly well at those goals.

        1. spelley says:

          It makes far more sense for someone like Shamus, and indeed *almost everyone else*, to stick with a framework when possible. There is too much to be gained working from a CMS that has been tinkered, tuned and tested by thousands of developers over multiple years to just “roll your own” because of some minor tradeoffs for most situations.

          This site is basically in WordPress’s wheelhouse anyway. It’s a bunch of blog content, just categorized in various ways.

  27. Rick says:

    Another plus, the aside links (whatever they’re called, numbered links with yellow popup boxes) on mobile are still small but a bit bigger than they were, I think. I also noticed that clicking on the body closes the box now, instead of having to click the box. A small but welcome fix :)

    More bonus points for not blocking zooming on mobile :)

  28. sensi277 says:

    The 404 page looks extremely weird. Wouldn’t be a very big deal if it weren’t for the fact that one of the links on your “about me” page goes to a 404.

    1. sensi277 says:

      The site also looks very weird on iPads.

  29. Lachlan the Mad says:

    A visual design issue; you’ve put a direct link to the forums at the top right of the links bar, and I’m glad to see there being a direct link instead of feeding through a page. However, that font isn’t particularly legible when rotated 90 degrees, particularly when it’s white text on a white background. I think it might be an idea to change the background colour of the image and/or change the font and/or resize the button so that the font runs horizontally.

    1. Paul Spooner says:

      I agree. “Forums” Text is hard to read. Same with “Even! More! Content!” AND “Comics”, but those aren’t sidways, so it’s not as much of a problem.

      But wait! You want more people coming to the forums? Are you mad? … Oh, it’s right there in your name.
      Carry on then.

  30. RCN says:

    Wait, wait, wait…

    You mean to tell me that Horizontal Scrolling on smartphones are supposed to be scorned and laughed at?

    I… Of course I always scroll vertically, what are you talking about? No, no, I’m normal.

    Frankly now, I just find it much, much more convenient to go through sites on the horizontal. It means I can focus on a single paragraph at a time, with font large enough I don’t have to strain my eye muscles reading and my fat fingertips can actually hit the buttons I intended to hit. Vertical might be a more ergonomic hold, but if I did what was more comfortable for OTHER people… I’d probably have a healthier spine? I dunno, I thought I had something there.

    1. Paul Spooner says:

      I think what he meant by “horizontal scrolling” was scrolling laterally across each line as you read it, instead of your meaning which appears to be holding the device so that the long axis is horizontal (which makes perfect sense to me) thus allowing a larger width, at the cost of height.

      The phrase is ambiguous though. Either way, good point.

      1. RCN says:

        Oh, that makes sense. Though I got the impression any smartphone browser will automatically resize whatever site you’re in to fit the screen.

        In either case I seem to still be the odd one. I always zoom in in my smartphone to get what I want to read or view taking as much screen space as possible and side-scrolling on smartphones are much, much less contrived and annoying than on a PC.

  31. sofawall says:

    The only slight complain I have is that a 1920*1080 screen turned portrait has a very small amount of horizontal scrolling (you lose a few pixels at the side to the vertical scroll bar). I knew I should have gone with 16:10.

  32. LWD says:

    Something I noticed: the second row of category boxes under “Twenty Sided” is slightly less wide than the top row.

  33. Philpax says:

    I’m using a Surface Pro 3 with a resolution of 2160×1440 at 125% DPI scaling, and everything is absolutely *massive* when the window is maximized. I have to zoom out several sizes in order to get it to be readable.

    EDIT: Latest version of Chrome on Windows 8.1

  34. Mephane says:

    I had to check twice that it is not an issue on my end – I experience the site as if everything has been simply enlarged. The font, the buttons, even the text input fields. I have to zoom out two steps to get everything back to a reasonable size (ctrl+
    wheel down here on Firefox in “zoom text only” mode – which does not affect the width of the boxes or images, just text, buttons, input fields etc.). Except for the embedded twitter box, which has obviously too small text now.

    Looking at the site like this, I guess I can live with the new width of the content and comment boxes, though I definitely found the previous width easier to read. Plus, the left margin has entirely disappeared, the text is glued right to the left edge of the browser window, which I find a bit distracting because I, too, don’t have the browser maximized and therefore there is other stuff right beyond the browser’s border. (And when I maximize it, the text is glued to the left-most edge of the screen, which is also a bit uncomfortable.) Edit: Scrap the previous sentence in brackets. There is a dynamic margin, when I maximize the window a margin appears, and when I manually adjust the width, above a certain width the margin starts appearing and growing. I would please have at least a 10 pixel margin in all cases.

  35. General Karthos says:

    Arrgh! The site is just a LITTLE wider than my browser window now. So when I try to scroll down, the screen bounced around. On the other hand the text is HUGE, so it’s like I’m reading a book out of Kindergarten.

    I dunno…. If I were willing to make my browser window wider, or if I were running a monitor larger than the mere 15 inches I have, I’d be fine with it. And I figure most people are running larger than 15 inches, so my complaints aren’t particularly relevant. Plus, a little turbulence in the process of scrolling down isn’t all that big a deal. Was just kind of a shock to see the blog look so different.

    1. CJ Kerr says:

      Have you checked the image Shamus posted of how it’s supposed to look? I think what you’re describing is a glitch.

      1. General Karthos says:

        Logged in today and it’s working fine. Either something changed or my computer was just being its usual petulant self.

        1. Browsers are aggressive at caching things, it’s possible you had the old/a older CSS stylesheet that did not match the page shown fully.

  36. Thomas says:

    I won’t leave too many initial problems, because there’s always a “Garghh they changed things” deal.

    The right sidebar looks nice, however when I look at it on my Android phone, the sidebar doesn’t display but the space for it is still there. So there’s like a 1/5th screen pillar of nothing.

    Also as mentioned above, everything defaults to too close to the left hand side on the phone. It almost cuts off the words. Maybe if the text stretched all the way across the screen it wouldn’t feel so bad.

    EDIT: Comments look a lot nicer

  37. Patrick the Non-compliant says:

    The style is fine. Font size and spacing are fine, its the writing and subject matter that are gawd-awful.

    Every time Shamus writes a post, God kills a kitten. It’s true.

    Also: the spearchucker was a reference to a character in the books, remember? They edited him out of the show because Archie Bunker had already used up the networks allotment of racially insensitive comments for the decade.

  38. Wide And Nerdy says:

    On the headers on the right bar, I’ve become a fan of throwing in some padding and font spacing to let the element breathe. I was trying my hand at flat design and not understanding why my design didn’t have the visual appeal of a typical flat design until I accidentally threw in some excess padding. With thin fonts with a little extra spacing.

    The thing I run into when the containing element hugs so closely to the letters is that there’s an illusion of distortion on the box wherever the letters are near to the box edge which undermines the crispness that flat design goes for.

    But then your design does have a few lingering skeumorphic elements. and its not like you’ve converted to flat simple icons either.

    But your design looks fine to me. I can sympathize as someone who has recently been doing this for a living. And I’ve come to appreciate just how hard it can be to make tile alignments like the one in your header work properly across multiple browsers. So however many hours of fiddling you did, know that at least some of us noticed and appreciated.

    This isn’t a “must fix” but if I were designing your tile element, I’d use a jquery animate or a css transitions to make the opacity on hover change over .25 to .5 seconds. If you have jquery already, its a pretty quick and easy thing to implement.

    You fix one thing and it creates problems elsewhere and sometimes nothing short of a ground up rewrite will ever address it.

  39. CJ Kerr says:

    For those who aren’t super-fond of the wider column, it’s easily altered by injecting your own stylesheet (I use the Stylish extension for Chrome).

    Something like this will do it without breaking the new layout:

    .entry p {
    margin-left: 40px;
    margin-right: 40px;
    }

    If reading on a narrow display, you might prefer to put all the margin on the right instead.

    Yes, the result looks a bit visually unbalanced. I haven’t decided yet if I can be bothered to put more work into a better version – this is good enough to make reading more comfortable for me.

    EDIT (whilst I still can!):

    If you also want the comments narrower, try:

    .entry p {
    margin-left: 60px;
    margin-right: 20px;
    }

  40. Daemian Lucifer says:

    Im sorry if someone else mentioned it,I did a quick search and didnt find it.

    The boxes where you type in name,email,website and your comment are still the old narrow size.Its not that noticeable when you post a new comment,but its really distracting when you are replying to someone.

  41. thesomethingcool says:

    It looks alright on a desktop browser, but on my phone comments start at the very left side of the screen, which makes it awkward to read. That may have been a problem with the old site too, but I never went there with a mobile browser.

  42. DIN aDN says:

    Just checking in at the appropriate post to say, “Oooh, I like the return of the pretty colours for the comment boxes!”

  43. DanMan says:

    Not sure if this is due to the changes here or just because I’m forced to use IE9 while at work (haven’t tried it at home), but when I just go to shamusyoung.com, I see all the cherry-picked items, but there’s nothing clickable. There’s no navigation to the items you describe.

  44. Retsam says:

    Couple annoyances I’ve seen on posting comments:

    When I post a reply to a comment that’s a couple layers deep (I’m seeing it in reply to a comment that’s 5 levels deep, if the original comment is considered level 1, i.e. based on Roger’s comment chain above), the textarea is wider than the available space, so when I type to the end of box, the whole space scrolls and I can no longer see the start of what I was typing.

    And, secondly, I thought I remember a cancel button on posting a comment. Both for the sake of just being able to close the new comment form, but also because you need to cancel the current reply in order to be able post a new comment at the bottom of the comment section; so currently, if I click “reply”, I need to refresh the page to post a new, non-reply comment. (Hope that makes sense)

    Oh, and another annoyance that’s been around awhile; is it deliberate that I can’t tab to the “Check this if you’re not a spam bot” box? It’d be nice if I didn’t need my mouse to click that; but it might be part of the anti-spam protection.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Be nice, don't post angry, and enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

You can enclose spoilers in <strike> tags like so:
<strike>Darth Vader is Luke's father!</strike>

You can make things italics like this:
Can you imagine having Darth Vader as your <i>father</i>?

You can make things bold like this:
I'm <b>very</b> glad Darth Vader isn't my father.

You can make links like this:
I'm reading about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader">Darth Vader</a> on Wikipedia!

You can quote someone like this:
Darth Vader said <blockquote>Luke, I am your father.</blockquote>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.