We (UW) actually did this in our fork. I wasn't sure if the community would want it, but if you want to check it out its right here:
https://github.com/UW-Madison-DoIT/uPortal/commit/82a109b33d4007b68586edd70b7800fbe2af217a Basically just changes container to container-fluid. We needed to do this because we added a custom region called "global-sidebar-left" which is for a slide out page level menu on medium/small screens. If others are interested I can post a PR on master for it. - Tim On 05-07-14, Drew Wills wrote: > I am okay with the proposal. > > FWIW I had previously been thinking we should talk about either going this > direction or at least widening the fixed width. > > drew > > On 05/07/2014 10:42 AM, James Wennmacher wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I propose that we change the Respondr theme to be fluid width (e.g. full > >width) instead of the fixed-width format where Bootstrap have a > >fixed-width for the rows and centers the content in the viewport for > >devices >= 768px (see http://getbootstrap.com/css/#grid). We can > >consider asking the uportal-user community, but from talking to a few > >people it seems there was not a strong design decision to limit the > >viewing to the fixed-widths<http://getbootstrap.com/css/#grid>. I > >personally have found it annoying and limiting. Bootstrap's main site > >uses fixed-width and so do many other bootstrap sites, but I'm told many > >other bootstrap sites do not. > > > >Advantages of full width: > > > > * Can display more information wider, especially with the > > preponderance of wide-screen monitors where height is often limited > > so you do more vertical scrolling. > > * With Bootstrap's general tendency to make items bigger so they are > > more easily accessed by a finger on a mobile device, on a desktop > > and some landscape-oriented tablets it would be helpful to have the > > greater width to display content since you typically have 2 or more > > columns. > > * Puts Respondr on-par with Universality in this aspect. > > > >Disadvantages of full width: > > > > * If you are restricted to widths of <750px, 750px, 970px, and 1170px > > it makes testing easier since you don't have to figure out how to > > handle widths outside that restricted set. > > > >To use full width is actually very easy. We replace the class > >'container' with 'container-fluid' on the markup generated by the XSL. > >We could make it fairly easy to configure in the XSL with a default of > >full width. > > > >Thoughts? > > > >-- > >James Wennmacher - Unicon > >480.558.2420 > > > >-- > > > >You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: > >awi...@unicon.net > >To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > >http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev > > > > -- > You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: > lev...@wisc.edu > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev -- You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
