homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Site Graphics and Multimedia Design
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: not2easy

Site Graphics and Multimedia Design Forum

HiRes Widescreen and Thumbnails
What size are you using?

 3:45 am on Jul 31, 2008 (gmt 0)

Not too long ago, it seems, everything I coded was 800x600. Recently upgraded both system and monitor (widescreen 1680x1050) and revisited some of my older pages containing thumbnail links (100x100). Appalled at what I saw.

Question: With Firefox and soon IE8 equipped with ZOOM features, is there a need to change previous pages? And, second, should an upsize in thumbnails be considered (200x200, for example)?



 5:21 am on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

You need to consider what people are viewing at, very few people use 800X600 anymore. You may have been the last one... LOL

Sites I'm doing now will safely display within a 1024 wide resolution which if I remember correctly it is the most popular at the moment but I think that will be short lived with all the wide screen monitors coming on the market.


 12:08 am on Aug 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

Well aware of 1024... used that a few years myself and--at the time, saw no need/reason to deal with the 800 width pages (all are centered and thus worked okay). TODAY however with so many monitors 1200+ and pages (liquid or otherwise) formatted to fill the screen, these pages which have been up since 1996 appear to need an overhaul.

Even with broadband more common, at what point does a 100 image thumbnail page not work?

And how many older folks ZOOM or use LARGE FONTS etc.? Me being one of the older folks.

Do we code for kids with sharp eyesight? Can we depend on the mom and pop (that's most of us) being smart enough to figure out how to use screen zoom if they are not using FF?

In a wide screen world, which is becoming more prevalent, what size
THUMBNAIL makes sense without slowing page, etc.

When I started webmastering 640 was the norm. And take it back a year or so earlier and all my graphics from 1983 to 1994 were ansi (BBS). :)


 7:42 am on Aug 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think 100 is too small under any conditions for a thumbnail. 150 would probably be the smallest I would use unless the space didn't allow it such is in side navigation panel. Unfortunate but you have to design for the masses and the masses use 1024. You can't cater to everyone, my take on it is that those using other resolutions will adapt.

BTW the zoom feature is already implemented in IE7.


 1:58 pm on Aug 2, 2008 (gmt 0)

What matters here is what size screens and browser windows YOUR visitors use. Who cares what the masses use?

And don't forget that large monitors don't mean folks are viewing your site full screen.

If I visited your site you might look in your stats and see that someone had a 1600x1200 monitor. But would you know that my browser window was only 800x600?


 2:01 am on Aug 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Why would I care what window size is used? RESOLUTION. My once nice thumbnails now look like smudge spots. :)

I'll resize up since these are art prints we'd like to sell. Those who use less than full screen can adapt... by scrolling to the right.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Site Graphics and Multimedia Design
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved