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
      ... 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.