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

Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.