Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions

Expand Messages
  • Greg Chapman
    Hi, ... I agree! But I answered the way I did bcause I wanted to make the point that there are many who will still want to use a small window in spite of
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      On 24 Apr 08 17:05 sisterscape <sisterscape@...> said:
      > My vote goes to flexible width format.

      I agree! But I answered the way I did bcause I wanted to make the
      point that there are many who will still want to use a small window in
      spite of having a large screen. Additionally, "flexible width" is not
      always meaningful on a graphic intensive site, where images are more
      "fixed" than text in the way it reflows with changing window size.

      > Personally, fixed width sites drive me nuts!

      Agreed again, for the reasons above and in my previous post.

      Greg
    • Axel Berger
      ... Maybe, but more probably you visit the wrong sites or you even use IE. The designers may well have issued a max-width for you but IE is too broken to see
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Greg Chapman wrote:
        > Maybe I'm older than I feel!

        Maybe, but more probably you visit the wrong sites or you even use
        IE. The designers may well have issued a max-width for you but IE is
        too broken to see it. If so my site will be a particularly bad
        example for you, but then I expect savy users to browse in a partial
        window anyway and don't expect to be king of their castle with all
        the screen to myself alone.

        > Good hosting services provide this information in their log
        > files as part of their standard service.

        No they don't. All they can tell is the screen size, and that's of
        no use to anyone at all.

        Axel
      • Axel Berger
        ... I ve very briefly considered those for a (political) party site I maintain. But then I decided that the kind of people I m writing for will probably not
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          sisterscape wrote:
          > (Urchin before Google and AWStats)

          I've very briefly considered those for a (political) party site I
          maintain. But then I decided that the kind of people I'm writing for
          will probably not apprecialte my running snooping script on their
          personal hardware. And as I sometines do use small scripts for other
          purposes maintaining their trust is important to me.

          Axel
        • Don - HtmlFixIt.com
          I agree with Greg. We have a script counter over at http://htmlfixit.com that will tell you screen resolutions of your visitors. We run it and even on our tech
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with Greg.

            We have a script counter over at http://htmlfixit.com that will tell you
            screen resolutions of your visitors.

            We run it and even on our tech site, we still see some 800 x 600. But
            even when people can go wider, it exceeds the scan comfort of the human
            eye. There is a reason why newspapers and magazines have columns.

            Don with his 2 cents.

            Greg Chapman wrote:
            > Hi Ray,
            >
            > On 24 Apr 08 14:54 Ray Shapp <ras45@...> said:
            >> I'd be interested in knowing your opinions about that question in
            >> general.
            >
            > I'm still of the old fashioned school that says 800x600 is a
            > reasonable design size. It's not so much the screen/window size of
            > users that that is based on, but line length.
            >
            > Most people agree that a line length of 8-12 words is about right for
            > text. Your eyes tend to wander and find it difficult to locate the
            > next line if it's much more than that.
            >
            > So, if you have a multi-column design with adverts, menus, or trailers
            > for parts of the site, then 1024 may be acceptable, but if you use the
            > full window width for your body text then it is probably uncomfortably
            > long, unless you dfine a very large font.
          • Ray Shapp
            Hi Greg and sisterscape, Thank you for the quick replies. The website does not use full width for text. I have an index along the left margin and I devote 460
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Greg and sisterscape,

              Thank you for the quick replies.

              The website does not use full width for text. I have an index along the left
              margin and I devote 460 pixels to the right of that for all the rest of my
              content. The website was designed years ago for 800x600. I've already
              considered remaining with that limitation because I know that a significant
              number of our members will probably not operate their browsers in full screen.
              If I do change the design to 1024x768, my plan is to use the additional width
              for a third column of text and graphics unrelated to the content in the middle
              column.

              One other idea may be to place the index horizontally along the top of the
              screen. I can then use the space at left for a new second column of text and
              graphics.

              I've examined the raw log files provided by our hosting service, but I don't
              see screen resolutions in the logs. I asked the question here because I was
              hoping someone has a Java or CGI script that I could adopt for capturing
              screen resolutions into my own log file on the site.

              Firefox handles displayed font sizes much better than MSIE. In Firefox, text
              will wrap if I increase font size, but in MSIE, that causes the display to
              require horizontal scrolling.

              I'm looking at StatCounter ( http://www.statcounter.com/ ). They say they
              track screen resolutions.

              Thanks again for your help.

              Ray Shapp
            • Jeff Scism
              I tend to size by % width, so each user s settings determine how they see it. I also tend to remove hard breaks in paragraphs so they can wrap to width when
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I tend to size by % width, so each user's settings determine how they
                see it. I also tend to remove hard breaks in paragraphs so they can wrap
                to width when the page size is readjusted by the user.

                Greg Chapman wrote:
                >
                > Hi Ray,
                >
                > On 24 Apr 08 14:54 Ray Shapp <ras45@...
                > <mailto:ras45%40optonline.net>> said:
                > >
                > > I'd be interested in knowing your opinions about that question in
                > > general.
                >
                > I'm still of the old fashioned school that says 800x600 is a
                > reasonable design size. It's not so much the screen/window size of
                > users that that is based on, but line length.
                >
                > Most people agree that a line length of 8-12 words is about right for
                > text. Your eyes tend to wander and find it difficult to locate the
                > next line if it's much more than that.
                >
                > So, if you have a multi-column design with adverts, menus, or trailers
                > for parts of the site, then 1024 may be acceptable, but if you use the
                > full window width for your body text then it is probably uncomfortably
                > long, unless you dfine a very large font.
                >
                > I tend to use less than full screen on so many sites as I find them
                > difficult to read, on some that's even after increasing the font size
                > from something I have to squint at. Maybe I'm older than I feel!
                >
                > > Also, do you know of any Java script or other tools I can apply to
                > > the site that will capture screen resolutions of our visitors and
                > > record them into a log file?
                >
                > Good hosting services provide this information in their log files as
                > part of their standard service. However, I'm sure thei are freebie
                > sites that will provide the service or you, I haven't googled for any,
                > but do remember screen size is not window size!
                >
                > Greg
                >
                >
              • Axel Berger
                ... You have to thank the current generation of web designers for that. School dropouts used to moonlight as backyard car mechanics, nowadays they fancy
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ray Shapp wrote:
                  > Firefox handles displayed font sizes much better than MSIE.
                  > In Firefox, text will wrap if I increase font size, but in
                  > MSIE, that causes the display to require horizontal scrolling.

                  You have to thank the current generation of "web designers" for
                  that. School
                  dropouts used to moonlight as backyard car mechanics, nowadays they
                  fancy themselves as "designers" and it shows. Because user chosen
                  text scaling is all too often suppressed by them the browser
                  manufacturers (Opera and IE 7) in desperation chose to scale the
                  screen instead. I have just found out how to detect that and am
                  aiming to adjust my layout, but it can't be done in clean CSS ands
                  will require schripting.

                  I hate it, when I have to conform to idiots and not the other way
                  round. If I could have a wish it would be that browsers would all
                  stop guessing at invalid junk code and just show a "I can't display
                  that mess" message instead.

                  Axel
                • Ray Shapp
                  Hello Alex, Thank you for your replies. I m sorry I didn t see them before I replied to Greg and sisterscape.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Alex,

                    Thank you for your replies. I'm sorry I didn't see them before I replied to
                    Greg and sisterscape.


                    <<No you can't! What you can and should do is adapt your design to the window
                    and font size your viewers prefer and *respect their
                    preferences*>>

                    If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolution is very low
                    (below ten percent), then I am willing to convert to 1024x768. The only
                    inconvenience to the folks on low resolution monitors will be that they will
                    be required to scroll horizontally. Do you see any other "cost" to them? I
                    expect most of those people will be upgrading their equipment in the normal
                    course of events. I don't think any or many new users are coming online with
                    low resolution monitors. BTW, we have some very impatient members on our exec
                    committee who are much less accommodative than I am. As webmaster, it is up to
                    me to implement our collective decision, but I must respect the strong
                    opinions of some of these other people.



                    <<Two places you ought to go to are:
                    http://leftjustified.net/site-in-an-hour/
                    http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/jello.html
                    >>

                    Many thanks for those links. The nearly blank screen provided by the default
                    view on the "Site in an hour" website is certainly novel. It nearly threw me
                    until I noticed the tiny icons in the lower right corner of the screen. Like
                    Greg, maybe I'm older than I feel. I don't appreciate telephone numbers or
                    calendar dates that use periods for the numeral separators. I'm not
                    comfortable with Help systems like those in Adobe Acrobat where one cannot see
                    a detailed table of contents. I also don't like the blank screen approach of
                    "Site in an hour". Thankfully, the site does provide an easy alternate way to
                    view it in conventional mode.


                    <<That said my commented sample at
                    http://axel.berger-odenthal.de/work/Sudel/Webdesign.htm has two example
                    scripts querying the window size.>>

                    I literally fell on the floor laughing at your legal notice. Wonderful bit of
                    prose!


                    << You will predominantly log dumbasses in fullscreen with no sense for
                    security. Savvy users, who often have several windows open at the same time
                    (typical minimal example is an editor and browsing for data and references),
                    will also keep their Javascript firmly turned off in many cases.>>

                    That describes many of my constituents. Not much I can do about that. Thanks
                    for the JavaScript example. And yes, I fully agree in endorsing NoteTab as an
                    excellent editor.

                    Ray Shapp
                  • Ray Shapp
                    Hi Don, Thanks for the reply. Your home page opened ok, but I was unable to open any link from it. Your resolution statistics, however, are quite instructive
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Don,

                      Thanks for the reply.

                      Your home page opened ok, but I was unable to open any link from it. Your
                      resolution statistics, however, are quite instructive (see listing copied
                      below). If your numbers are representative of resolutions our club members
                      use, I will be surprised, but I will also be forced to begin converting our
                      website for 1024x768. My guess is that the sophistication of your average
                      visitor in the field of computer usage is quite different from that of my
                      visitors. If resolutions are truly being captured by your scripts, then I
                      would very much like to deploy them on my site for a while.

                      Your comment about the new Microsoft XLSX file format and their compatibility
                      pack mirrors my experience almost exactly. On two separate machines running
                      Office 2003, the compatibility pack worked flawlessly on one machine and
                      failed with no explanation on the other. My temporary solution was to request
                      another copy of the file in the old format.

                      Ray Shapp

                      Resolution Statistics
                      640 x 480 0.02%
                      800 x 600 2.62%
                      1024 x 768 33.52%
                      1152 x 864 3.49%
                      1280 x 800 17.17%
                      1280 x 854 0.37%
                      1280 x 1024 32.55%
                      1400 x 1050 2.12%
                      1600 x 1200 3.66%
                      1920 x 1200 4.28%
                      2560 x 1024 0.19%



                      ***********************************

                      February 15th, 2008 by Don

                      So I find that Microsoft has once again decided to switch things up in the
                      Excel world with the xlsx file format. Why would you not build in backwards
                      compatibility? Because you choose to make it inconvenient in hopes of forcing
                      people to buy your new product? Fortunately they do have a tool to allow you
                      to open the new format in your "old" program. However to use it you need to
                      update your Microsoft environment and even in this age they FORCE you to use
                      Internet Explorer.
                    • Ray Shapp
                      Hi Axel,
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Axel,

                        << If I could have a wish it would be that browsers would all stop guessing at
                        invalid junk code and just show a "I can't display that mess" message
                        instead.>>

                        The message should say "I REFUSE TO display that mess".

                        Thanks again for your help.

                        Ray Shapp
                      • loro
                        ... Not really. I happen to use your target resolution 1024x768 (not for much longer, I hope). I never surf with a maximized browser window. Unless the site
                        Message 11 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ray Shapp wrote:
                          >If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolution is very low
                          >(below ten percent), then I am willing to convert to 1024x768. The only
                          >inconvenience to the folks on low resolution monitors will be that they will
                          >be required to scroll horizontally

                          Not really. I happen to use your target resolution 1024x768 (not for
                          much longer, I hope). I never surf with a maximized browser window.
                          Unless the site forces me to maximize it. And then I get a little
                          grumpy. When I get a larger screen, I'll probably use about the same
                          size browser window that I use now and have more room for other things.

                          It isn't about resolution. It's about window size. OK, the resolution
                          sets the upper boundaries but that's all.

                          Lotta
                        • David Smart
                          Just to reiterate what others have said, It s the window size that counts, not the screen size. I always run browsers and e-mailers at about 800 to 900 wide,
                          Message 12 of 24 , Apr 24, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Just to reiterate what others have said, It's the window size that counts,
                            not the screen size.

                            I always run browsers and e-mailers at about 800 to 900 wide, even though my
                            two screens are each 1280 wide. I want to do other things on the screens
                            too.

                            Sites that require horizontal scrolling or a move to full screen are a pain,
                            and I visit them as infrequently as I can.

                            If you want to keep all your visitors, then allow people to comfortably run
                            screens of 800 wide. If you don't, then the people you lose will probably
                            be the ones you most wished to keep in the first place.

                            Regards, Dave S

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Ray Shapp" <ras45@...>
                            To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:39 AM
                            Subject: Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions


                            > Hello Alex,
                            >
                            > Thank you for your replies. I'm sorry I didn't see them before I replied
                            > to
                            > Greg and sisterscape.
                            >
                            >
                            > <<No you can't! What you can and should do is adapt your design to the
                            > window
                            > and font size your viewers prefer and *respect their
                            > preferences*>>
                            >
                            > If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolution is very low
                            > (below ten percent), then I am willing to convert to 1024x768. The only
                            > inconvenience to the folks on low resolution monitors will be that they
                            > will
                            > be required to scroll horizontally. Do you see any other "cost" to them? I
                            > expect most of those people will be upgrading their equipment in the
                            > normal
                            > course of events. I don't think any or many new users are coming online
                            > with
                            > low resolution monitors. BTW, we have some very impatient members on our
                            > exec
                            > committee who are much less accommodative than I am. As webmaster, it is
                            > up to
                            > me to implement our collective decision, but I must respect the strong
                            > opinions of some of these other people.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > <<Two places you ought to go to are:
                            > http://leftjustified.net/site-in-an-hour/
                            > http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/jello.html
                            >>>
                            >
                            > Many thanks for those links. The nearly blank screen provided by the
                            > default
                            > view on the "Site in an hour" website is certainly novel. It nearly threw
                            > me
                            > until I noticed the tiny icons in the lower right corner of the screen.
                            > Like
                            > Greg, maybe I'm older than I feel. I don't appreciate telephone numbers or
                            > calendar dates that use periods for the numeral separators. I'm not
                            > comfortable with Help systems like those in Adobe Acrobat where one cannot
                            > see
                            > a detailed table of contents. I also don't like the blank screen approach
                            > of
                            > "Site in an hour". Thankfully, the site does provide an easy alternate way
                            > to
                            > view it in conventional mode.
                            >
                            >
                            > <<That said my commented sample at
                            > http://axel.berger-odenthal.de/work/Sudel/Webdesign.htm has two example
                            > scripts querying the window size.>>
                            >
                            > I literally fell on the floor laughing at your legal notice. Wonderful bit
                            > of
                            > prose!
                            >
                            >
                            > << You will predominantly log dumbasses in fullscreen with no sense for
                            > security. Savvy users, who often have several windows open at the same
                            > time
                            > (typical minimal example is an editor and browsing for data and
                            > references),
                            > will also keep their Javascript firmly turned off in many cases.>>
                            >
                            > That describes many of my constituents. Not much I can do about that.
                            > Thanks
                            > for the JavaScript example. And yes, I fully agree in endorsing NoteTab as
                            > an
                            > excellent editor.
                            >
                            > Ray Shapp
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Axel Berger
                            ... It seems you missed the main point. It is irrelevant how big their screen is, the only relevant point is how big they prefer their browser window to be.
                            Message 13 of 24 , Apr 25, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ray Shapp wrote:
                              > If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolution
                              > is very low (below ten percent), then I am willing to convert

                              It seems you missed the main point. It is irrelevant how big their
                              screen is, the only relevant point is how big they prefer their
                              browser window to be.

                              > The only inconvenience to the folks on low resolution monitors
                              > will be that they will be required to scroll horizontally.

                              The result of that with many three column layouts is, that I never
                              get see the right column. Please remember only to place additional
                              extra information there, never anything essential.

                              > Do you see any other "cost" to them?

                              Rising blood pressure?

                              > The nearly blank screen provided by the default
                              > view on the "Site in an hour" website is certainly novel.

                              So you go browsing with scripting on by default? I hope you know
                              what you're doing but it certainly is a rather careless attitude to
                              safety.

                              Axel
                            • Axel Berger
                              ... That s our nice and level Lotta for you. For me being somewhat grumpy already at the best of times the reaction is on another scale. There is something
                              Message 14 of 24 , Apr 25, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                loro wrote:
                                > And then I get a little grumpy.

                                That's our nice and level Lotta for you. For me being somewhat
                                grumpy already at the best of times the reaction is on another
                                scale.
                                There is something else, best explained by a traffic simile. I don't
                                mind so much if somebody cuts me off, squeezes in right in front of
                                me or cuts in, when it's my right of way. I can see and more or less
                                accept his reasons. What gets me going are those stupid and
                                inconsiderate idiots who inconvenience me without the slightest
                                benefit to themselves out of total disregard, like blocking two
                                spaces with one car, blocking the overtaking lane while travelling
                                at exactly the speed of the huge gap beside them or blocking cross
                                traffic although they saw beforehand that they could not exit the
                                crossroads that really get me going.
                                What some site designers most explicitly show me is their total lack
                                of regard and consideration for their readers. "Why should I care
                                about you mate, take it or leave it, I couldn't care less. It works
                                fine for ME on MY equipment and with MY eyesight - you go and stuff
                                yourself." If that's what you want your visitors to see, fine, go
                                right ahead. If not you might want to think again.

                                Axel
                              • bruce.somers@web.de
                                800 x 600 pixel screen resolution is a Windows specification. On non-Windows computers, it is unlikely to be detected. Bruce
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 25, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  800 x 600 pixel "screen resolution" is a Windows specification. On non-Windows computers, it is unlikely to be detected.

                                  Bruce


                                  > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
                                  > Von: ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Gesendet: 24.04.08 19:17:39
                                  > An: ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Betreff: Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions


                                  > I agree with Greg.
                                  >
                                  > We have a script counter over at http://htmlfixit.com that will tell
                                  > you
                                  > screen resolutions of your visitors.
                                  >
                                  > We run it and even on our tech site, we still see some 800 x 600. But
                                  > even when people can go wider, it exceeds the scan comfort of the
                                  > human
                                  > eye. There is a reason why newspapers and magazines have columns.
                                  >
                                  > Don with his 2 cents.
                                  >
                                  > Greg Chapman wrote:
                                  > > Hi Ray,
                                  > >
                                  > > On 24 Apr 08 14:54 Ray Shapp <ras45@...> said:
                                  > >> I'd be interested in knowing your opinions about that question in
                                  > >> general.
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm still of the old fashioned school that says 800x600 is a
                                  > > reasonable design size. It's not so much the screen/window size of
                                  > > users that that is based on, but line length.
                                  > >
                                  > > Most people agree that a line length of 8-12 words is about right
                                  > for
                                  > > text. Your eyes tend to wander and find it difficult to locate the
                                  > > next line if it's much more than that.
                                  > >
                                  > > So, if you have a multi-column design with adverts, menus, or
                                  > trailers
                                  > > for parts of the site, then 1024 may be acceptable, but if you use
                                  > the
                                  > > full window width for your body text then it is probably uncomfortabl
                                  > y
                                  > > long, unless you dfine a very large font.
                                  >
                                • alice ttlg
                                  ... Really? My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my screen to (along with most all the same resolutions that my WinPC lists) and when I ve
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 25, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 4/25/08, bruce.somers@... <bruce.somers@...> wrote:
                                    > 800 x 600 pixel "screen resolution" is a Windows specification. On non-Windows
                                    > computers, it is unlikely to be detected.

                                    Really? My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my
                                    screen to (along with most all the same resolutions that my WinPC
                                    lists) and when I've used counters/trackers on my sites in the past,
                                    it's detected screen resolution for visitors using Macs.

                                    --
                                    hth,
                                    alice ttlg
                                  • sisterscape
                                    800 x 600 is listed in Linux also. ... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 25, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      800 x 600 is listed in Linux also.

                                      --- alice ttlg <alice.ttlg@...> wrote:

                                      > On 4/25/08, bruce.somers@... <bruce.somers@...> wrote:
                                      > > 800 x 600 pixel "screen resolution" is a Windows specification. On
                                      > non-Windows
                                      > > computers, it is unlikely to be detected.
                                      >
                                      > Really? My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my
                                      > screen to (along with most all the same resolutions that my WinPC
                                      > lists) and when I've used counters/trackers on my sites in the past,
                                      > it's detected screen resolution for visitors using Macs.
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > hth,
                                      > alice ttlg
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >



                                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and
                                      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                                    • bruce.somers@web.de
                                      My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my screen to (along with most all the same resolutions that my WinPC lists) and when I ve used
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Apr 26, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my screen to (along with most all the same resolutions that my WinPC lists) and when I've used counters/trackers on my sites in the past, it's detected screen resolution for visitors using Macs.
                                        --
                                        hth,
                                        alice ttlg


                                        800 x 600 is listed in Linux also.
                                        sisterscape



                                        Interesting. I wonder if that has changed. I used to test for the "standard resolutions" 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864 and 1280x1024 and select the page to be displayed on that basis.

                                        Then, while visiting a friend who had a MAC G4 Powerbook, I found that she was seeing the (default) version for 800x600 although she had a screen width more than 1200. I've forgotten what the height was, but I now test for the width only - as I should have from the beginning - and I check for ranges, not specific values.

                                        I will stick to that of course, even if others have adopted the Windows standard resolutions.

                                        Sorry to have caused any confusion.

                                        Bruce
                                      • Axel Berger
                                        ... Well some paople are totally resistant to any advice. But I maintain that Lotta ... and sisterscape ... among several others have put the main point very
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Apr 26, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          bruce.somers@... wrote:
                                          > I will stick to that of course,

                                          Well some paople are totally resistant to any advice. But I maintain
                                          that Lotta

                                          > I never surf with a maximized browser window. Unless the site
                                          > forces me to maximize it. And then I get a little grumpy.

                                          and sisterscape

                                          > I know many people who don't keep their browsers maximized.
                                          > Personally, fixed width sites drive me nuts!

                                          among several others have put the main point very well.

                                          Axel
                                        • Axel Berger
                                          Addendum: Just as a hint of what I have found to be reasonable values: I limit all single column designs to a max-width of 42em by default and set lengthy
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Apr 26, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Addendum:

                                            Just as a hint of what I have found to be reasonable values: I limit
                                            all single column designs to a max-width of 42em by default and set
                                            lengthy texts to a max-width of 34em or up to 38em, if there are
                                            many lists, blockquotes or other items shortening the lines.

                                            Your preferences may vary, but I think these values are about the
                                            right ballpark. (An em is much wider than the average letter in a
                                            line.) Also note that the correct unit in these cases has nothing to
                                            do with pixels and thus little to do with screen resolutions. These
                                            may do well for graphics, but line length for text should respect
                                            the reader's choice of an agreeable fontsize.

                                            Axel
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.