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

Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Apr 24 1:39 PM
    • 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 2 of 24 , Apr 24 2:09 PM
      • 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 3 of 24 , Apr 24 2:14 PM
        • 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 4 of 24 , Apr 24 3:08 PM
          • 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 5 of 24 , Apr 24 3:53 PM
            • 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 6 of 24 , Apr 25 3:24 AM
              • 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 7 of 24 , Apr 25 3:44 AM
                • 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 8 of 24 , Apr 25 12:28 PM
                  • 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 9 of 24 , Apr 25 5:35 PM
                    • 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 10 of 24 , Apr 25 7:14 PM
                      • 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 11 of 24 , Apr 26 2:34 AM
                        • 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 12 of 24 , Apr 26 3:48 AM
                          • 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 13 of 24 , Apr 26 3:58 AM
                            • 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.