Re: [NTO] Screen Resolutions
- 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.