Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions
- 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
The message should say "I REFUSE TO display that mess".
Thanks again for your help.
- Ray Shapp wrote:
>If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolution is very lowNot really. I happen to use your target resolution 1024x768 (not for
>(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
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.
- 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
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@...>
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
> Greg and sisterscape.
> <<No you can't! What you can and should do is adapt your design to the
> and font size your viewers prefer and *respect their
> 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
> 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
> course of events. I don't think any or many new users are coming online
> low resolution monitors. BTW, we have some very impatient members on our
> 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:
> Many thanks for those links. The nearly blank screen provided by the
> view on the "Site in an hour" website is certainly novel. It nearly threw
> until I noticed the tiny icons in the lower right corner of the screen.
> 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
> a detailed table of contents. I also don't like the blank screen approach
> "Site in an hour". Thankfully, the site does provide an easy alternate way
> 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
> << You will predominantly log dumbasses in fullscreen with no sense for
> security. Savvy users, who often have several windows open at the same
> (typical minimal example is an editor and browsing for data and
> That describes many of my constituents. Not much I can do about that.
> excellent editor.
> Ray Shapp
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Ray Shapp wrote:
> If then percentage of our members who use 800 pixel resolutionIt seems you missed the main point. It is irrelevant how big their
> is very low (below ten percent), then I am willing to convert
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 monitorsThe result of that with many three column layouts is, that I never
> will be that they will be required to scroll horizontally.
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 defaultSo you go browsing with scripting on by default? I hope you know
> view on the "Site in an hour" website is certainly novel.
what you're doing but it certainly is a rather careless attitude to
- 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
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.
- 800 x 600 pixel "screen resolution" is a Windows specification. On non-Windows computers, it is unlikely to be detected.
> -----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
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> > for parts of the site, then 1024 may be acceptable, but if you use
> > full window width for your body text then it is probably uncomfortabl
> > long, unless you dfine a very large font.
- On 4/25/08, bruce.somers@... <bruce.somers@...> wrote:
> 800 x 600 pixel "screen resolution" is a Windows specification. On non-WindowsReally? My Macbook lists 800 x 600 in the resolutions I can set my
> computers, it is unlikely to be detected.
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.
- 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
> > 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.
> 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
- 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.
800 x 600 is listed in Linux also.
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.somers@... wrote:
> I will stick to that of course,Well some paople are totally resistant to any advice. But I maintain
> I never surf with a maximized browser window. Unless the siteand sisterscape
> forces me to maximize it. And then I get a little grumpy.
> I know many people who don't keep their browsers maximized.among several others have put the main point very well.
> Personally, fixed width sites drive me nuts!
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.