Forum Moderators: open
So what should you optimise for? Make you page design LIQUID - that way it's optimised for everybody :-D
I just checked, and I'm using 1280x1024 right now...
If the text ends up too small, I usually will have the option of increasing my browser font size, unless the site has specified CSS fonts using px instead of em. Usually, the only real difference I notice using a 'big screen' setting is that images shrink in proportion to text. But I have to do a lot less scrolling... :)
I agree that an effort should be made to make a site usable at just about any setting, and to make it attractive from 800x600 all the way up to 1280x1024 or even 1600x1200. Whether you use careful 'classic' table-based layout or the latest CSS-driven liquid layout, a decent appearance and good usability can almost always be achieved. WebmasterWorld looks great at this setting, for example, as it does at 1024x768 (below that, everything looks 'huge' to me, so I never go below that except when testing my own pages at 800x600).
Jim
[edited by: jdMorgan at 5:46 am (utc) on Mar. 24, 2004]
1024x768 - 49%
800x600 - 37%
1280x1024 - 6%
1152x864 - 3%
640x480 - 1%
Unknown - 1%
1600x1200 - 0% (less then 1%)
CSS perhaps
It's extremely useful, when you can, to have two or three windows open and visible at the same time -- often with different applications running in each one. So to the degree that physical dimensions and screen resolution allow it, I maximize the available real estate. Even my relatively small laptop runs at 1024.
The best designs are liquid designs. It always annoys me to see a site designed in 800x600, particularly if it is on the left side of the screen. In my opinion it always seems to be very amateur - as if the web designer has only tested it on their own machine. It seems that they are unaware of other colour settings, resolutions or browsers.
[I once had a friend who is not very computer literate ask why some sites were 'broken' and only used a part of the screen!]
[alistapart.com...]
If you agree with that arguement you may want to keep on designing for an 800px screen width for some projects. A blog for example.
[edited by: tedster at 4:35 pm (utc) on Mar. 24, 2004]
[edit reason] activate link [/edit]
Why? It's so small!
It's not small on my 21" monitor! (or even on an 18")...
Plus, maybe it's just a personal preference?
tolachi, you may want to check out [webmasterworld.com...]
[edited by: DrDoc at 4:53 pm (utc) on Mar. 24, 2004]
The best designs are liquid designs. It always annoys me to see a site designed in 800x600, particularly if it is on the left side of the screen. In my opinion it always seems to be very amateur - as if the web designer has only tested it on their own machine. It seems that they are unaware of other colour settings, resolutions or browsers.
yes, you're right! the bbc website; the largest and most comprehensive site in the world, is clearly made by a bunch of amateurs!
More and more people are on LCDs which, unlike CRTs, have an optimal physical resolution defined by the number of transistors. On my laptop and many others, that's 1024 x 768. The kicker is, though, it could just as easily be 200x175 if their on some other sort of device.
Tom
Netscape applies min-width and max-width elements. I believe that when IE can support such features, fluid/liquid layouts will become much more popular than they are now.
I would never design a site in a fixed resolution unless there was a specific reason for designing in that resolution, a list of reasons which would be very short, but there are some reasons.
I don't think the BBC would fit any valid reason for not being able to be fluid/liquid. When they recently changed from 640wide to 800wide, I was very surprised that they hadn't gone fluid at that time.
...and that they don't have the favourites open (or history) on the left hand side...
I believe that when IE can support such features,
Depends on what you mean by support. It can be hacked in using a calculated width based on window size, but it's not exactly the same thing.
Comprehensive article at
[svendtofte.com...]
Tom
Netscape applies min-width and max-width elements. I believe that when IE can support such features, fluid/liquid layouts will become much more popular than they are now.
This is the important thing about liquid layouts; a fully liquid layout is potentially disastrous if someone comes along with a 1200 pixel wide browser window - the line-lengths of the text are likely to be much too long.
At least 'til the biggest (*$@#%) browser in the world supports some proper width controls (sans-hack), I'll be sticking with fixed-width blocks of text.
-B
I've got a large monitor as well, and always use 1024x768 not only because it simply looks better for me, but I too keep track of the percentages out there amongst surfers. The numbers have been slowly shifting more and more towards this resolution as opposed to 800x600.
Thus, it's always best to have the same settings as most of your visitors.
As a site owner, my biggest pet peeve though, is getting that occasional email from visitors who say: "MY GOD!, why is the text so small on your site?"
I then have to explain how to change their settings within their browser.
NOTE TO SELF: Create that FAQs page you've been meaning to do for so long!
At least 'til the biggest (*$@#%) browser in the world supports some proper width controls (sans-hack), I'll be sticking with fixed-width blocks of text.
It's not a bad hack as hacks go. In fact, from an IE point of view, it's not even a hack, just an extension to the CSS standard that allows you to set a property as a javascrip expression. You can mimic max-width behavior almost identically. If you are setting widths using pixels, you can *exactly* mimic the behavior of max-width. It's a little less precise if you use ems, but pretty darned close.
Tom
NOTE TO SELF: Create that FAQs page you've been meaning to do for so long!
cyberfyber, that's a praiseworthy goal.... but believe me, it won't be long after you upload that page before you get the same sort of mails anyway, and when you explain PLUS send along the link to your brand spanking new FAQs page you get back a mail which says, "oh, I NEVER read the faqs page!"
I actually do not like fluid designs most of the time. Especially text-reach sites. If the text spans all over the screen - it is very hard to read and annoying.
I found a good solution was to make a fluid design for the whole site, but limit the text portion to a readable width. Of course, that would not work for some sites.
As technology advances, people's tastes advance to fit. 1024x768 is what/where 800x600 was a few years ago. I used it myself.... until the SMALLEST monitor I have is a 17" CRT which easily supports 1600x1200. At this point the only res I use is 1280x1024....
To me, 1024x768 looks "outdated", and 800x600 looks positively stone age-ish.
And I ALWAYS browse maximized, because when I browse that's all I'm doing....
