Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size document: was[EMAIL PROTECTED] received by: at:06/06/2007 10:16:35 AM * NSW Office of the Board of Studies Notice This notice is to inform you that as of 26/02/2007, the email address format for the Office of the Board of Studies has officially changed. For administration purposes, the old email address will be contactable only for a limited time. Please update your address book accordingly. * This email (including any accompanying documents) may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any dissemination, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the email address or the telephone or fax numbers above. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 2007/06/01 13:09 (GMT-0400) Andrew Maben apparently typed: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those Arbitrary may or may not be the right word to describe a somewhat narrow range of proportion between default text size and viewport size that reflects my intent. Such a range would have a line length ideal of 10-11 words [1] fit in roughly 50%-70% of the viewport width as the range center point. dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? Presumably the default text size at 200x400 will be a bunch smaller than 800x600 in keeping with the physically smaller display, but 200x400 is really an extreme example that needs a handheld media type stylesheet. 480x360 or thereabouts might be a more realistic floor for screen media, but at a minimum 800x600 all the way up should work as long as the default font size and viewport size stay within a reasonably common proportional relationship range. If I'm missing your point, I'd love to see some clarifying examples. Maybe we should just start by analyzing and discussing a very simplistic example: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/indexx.html (http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ without the automatic redirect) Using Safari, Konq, FF, SM and/or Camino zoom, or IE's text sizer, zoom it up a whole bunch of steps, and down a whole bunch of steps. Constrain only by keeping the text size to viewport width ratio within a reasonable working range. So large a font that only 4 words could fit across the viewport, and so small that line lengths could become 40 words or more, would clearly be outside that range. Somewhat less simplistic examples: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html [1] on line lengths of 10-11 words: http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm http://webstyleguide.com/type/lines.html http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/em/ -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices, Sure we can aim, but I think anyone who has spent half an hour or more looking into this will tell you that you will inevitably miss more often than not. It is a classic catch-22: There aren't enough handheld stylesheets out there for the browsers to be able to rely on them, so they have to make a best guess with what they have. Because the browsers ignore them, no-one will ever implement them. So basically, I aim to ensure that my designs are usable from about 200px wide upwards, though I too usually miss! Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices, Sure we can aim, but I think anyone who has spent half an hour or more looking into this will tell you that you will inevitably miss more often than not. It is a classic catch-22: There aren't enough handheld stylesheets out there for the browsers to be able to rely on them, so they have to make a best guess with what they have. Because the browsers ignore them, no-one will ever implement them. So basically, I aim to ensure that my designs are usable from about 200px wide upwards, though I too usually miss! Mike Do these remarks (from others too) mean that things like the firefox/Opera 'small screen rendering' tools are a waste of space? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
I only looked in IE7 FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small. I agree with Philip. Ai ling Cai Web Communication Manager www.studiocai.com www.goodmorning-italy.com Studio CAI - Marketing Visual Communications * e-Business Solutions * Advertising and Public Relations * Strategic Planning and Market Research .. - Original Message - From: Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices, Sure we can aim, but I think anyone who has spent half an hour or more looking into this will tell you that you will inevitably miss more often than not. It is a classic catch-22: There aren't enough handheld stylesheets out there for the browsers to be able to rely on them, so they have to make a best guess with what they have. Because the browsers ignore them, no-one will ever implement them. So basically, I aim to ensure that my designs are usable from about 200px wide upwards, though I too usually miss! Mike Do these remarks (from others too) mean that things like the firefox/Opera 'small screen rendering' tools are a waste of space? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size document: wasDennis Lapcewich/R6/USDAFS received by: at:06/04/2007 11:32:54 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 2007/06/04 20:09 (GMT+0200) [EMAIL PROTECTED] apparently typed: 03 Jun 2007 23:36:40 -0400 Felix Miata wrote (in an entirely separate thread): I only looked in IE7 FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small. I agree with Philip. Which is what? Nothing written by anyone named Philip was contained in anything you quoted. Nothing written by anyone named Philip was contained anywhere in this thread that I can find. I searched: http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?subject=1searchstring=Recommended+screen+size and http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?name=1searchstring=philip -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
All right-after reading all the posts on this topic ive been reviewing my rational for sticking with fixed width layouts for the last 50 sites ive designed. Where can i find the latest tutorials, articles and examples of creating relative sized layouts. Specifically can anyone recommend a site dealing with coverting existings layouts to relative sizing. -best -kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [No Protective Marking]
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [No Protective Marking] document: was[EMAIL PROTECTED] received by: at:05/06/2007 10:47:38 AM *** Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information and has been sent in accordance with the ANZTPA security policy. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author Immediately and delete all copies of this transmission. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 6/4/07, kevin mcmonagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All right-after reading all the posts on this topic ive been reviewing my rational for sticking with fixed width layouts for the last 50 sites ive designed. Where can i find the latest tutorials, articles and examples of creating relative sized layouts. Specifically can anyone recommend a site dealing with coverting existings layouts to relative sizing. You mean fluid layouts? I have a site for that: cssliquid.com. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 2 Jun 2007, at 12:29 PM, Katrina wrote: that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change tongue-in-cheek ...which will bring it back to where it started... /tongue-in-cheek N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience... 800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen resolution (window width not mentioned). ... These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and 1000 wide layout. In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class and that ruins it for everyone else. -kevin mcmonagle *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
For what it's worth, I often get irritated with 1024x768-mimum layouts, even though my screen is a wopping 1600x1200. There's obviously such a thing as incredibly long lines, but even in cases like the wonderful alistapart.com, I'm irritated that the screen should necessarily be so wide. I actually want my viewport smaller than that without having supposedly useful things hidden. The problem is that a lot of 800x600 designs will look awful once stretched. Ultimately you can't make everyone happy unless you use a trick akin to volkan ozcelik's switching layouts [sarmal.com]. But for a large part it's knowing how to design well that'll get you out of the pickle. Chose 800x600 and get it looking fantastic on 1024x768 too. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: So you're saying that someone using an 800-pixel-wide monitor probably wouldn't know what it's like to see the same page with a 1000-pixel-wide monitor? A user that has they're screen resolution set to 800x600 is well used to scrolling. The school analogy wasn't appropriate-but i think that using 800 as a base width is an extreme view. It depends on the content. Lately Ive been fixing page width anywere between 800 and 950- don't like to go all the way 1024. If im doing a tourism/lodging site and the page is overloaded with content I will go closer to 1000 but keep all navigation and critical content in the fold. Some busy sites can be easier to read if the content is given room to breath even if it takes a little scrolling from 2.5% of users. no harm. -best kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Hi there Tim, From the stats (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp) I would say go for 1024x768 but, with that said, whenever possible (often determined by client requirements and likes/dislikes :) ) go for a liquid layout that would enable your site to expand and contract based on the browser size. I think what a lot of people forget is that even though the users screen resolution might be 1024x768 or even higher, this does not mean that the user has their browser window maximized to the full height/width. I know especially on Mac this is very true. So to my mind, go for 1024x768 but keep the above in mind and go for liquid when at all possible. Kind Regards Schalk Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience... 800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen resolution (window width not mentioned). ... At 5/31/2007 11:32 PM, kevin mcmonagle wrote: These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and 1000 wide layout. So you're saying that someone using an 800-pixel-wide monitor probably wouldn't know what it's like to see the same page with a 1000-pixel-wide monitor? And therefore they don't deserve to see a decent page? What's your logic, and where's your compassion? In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class and that ruins it for everyone else. Oh, I see. So from your perspective life is really like an elementary school classroom, and we're really like little ten-year-olds pouting because we're too spoiled and lazy to advance ourselves when the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Oh my god. You're advocating a paradigm in which we can win only if someone else loses. There ain't enuf pixels on this ranch fer the two of us, Jethro! *Pow!* *pow!* *splat!* Unless, of course, it's possible that intelligent design can provide a decent page for everyone. That, however, requires a real winner. It takes the motivation to make everyone succeed and the intelligence to figure out how to make it work, the compassion to care about people different from ourselves and the brilliance to find solutions where others have failed. Are you up for the challenge? Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
This going anywhere? Bruce Prochnau bkdesign - Original Message - From: Chris Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size ...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Hrm. As a crippled kid and possibly even a stupid kid I am greatful that I got any attention. Good to know there are a few people left in the world that believe only they have a right to be anything. Are you sure you should have left Germany circa 1939? Greg Hacke [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: IM greghacke There is no right. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage) That sounds right: design for 1024, accommodate 800 and try to tolerate 640 Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
I've come by the axiom that there is no wrong. This means sometimes we have to not be compliant on some standards issues. I know, it's tough but if the client says I WILL HAVE X then you do it. Sure, you try and get them to change their mind, show them valid approaches, etc. but in the end - they own the site in question. I try and build to spec. If there is a need for a specific size, we do it. Personally, I start at 1024 but insure compatability at 800 as well and that it doesn't swim at high res. Greg Hacke Idle Hands Press :: idlehandspress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: IM greghacke *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Back in my eCommerce days, I ran a very high-tech oriented eStore where higher resolutions were the norm. Where I work now on my governmental site which services a very large rural area, I'm pushing closer to 20% at 800x600. Looking at my stats I see lots of visitors using old an OS and old browsers too. I really think you must design the resolution of your site to fit your target market. My target market now still has a huge % of visitors on 800x600 so the site must look good for them. I'm hoping to move the design into a more fluid layout, but for now, 800x600 is the base for me. -- Kevin Murphy Webmaster: Information and Marketing Services Western Nevada College www.wnc.edu 775-445-3326 On May 31, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Thomler, Craig wrote: I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
list etiquette [WAS: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size]
At 6/1/2007 07:38 AM, Chris Williams wrote: ...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... Yes, I chose those offensive words deliberately to point up the attitude of the person to whom I was replying, who wrote, ...the dumbest kids in the class However, I apologize to Kevin and to the list for posting such inflammatory sarcasm. I'm glad that folks are ignoring it and getting on with business. Warm regards, Paul *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 2007/06/01 11:01 (GMT-0400) Andrew Maben apparently typed: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage) That sounds right: design for 1024, accommodate 800 and try to tolerate 640 Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. -- The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Just wanted to add Ithat 've been waiting 10 years for the defacto standard to be 1024x768. I remember back then being over joyed that I had just moved from 640x480 to 800x600 as the standard resolution. I stupidly thought that 1024 was just around the corner. 10 years later and I'm still starting at 800x600 and make sure the site works at other resolution. If it doesn't fit 800x600 it doesn't go in. I'm just glad to have options of fluid or static design with css. Trevor *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? If I'm missing your point, I'd love to see some clarifying examples. Meanwhile, whilst I do indeed embrace the variability, there are literally infinite possible variations to the size and proportion of the browser viewport. I humbly suggest that it is unreasonable to expect, and frankly, impossible to achieve a design that will be uniformly brilliant in every case. While of course the variety of possible modes of final presentation have to be kept in mind, the initial design work is going to have to take place on a fixed-size canvas. If one sets what I think is the reasonable aim of producing a design that will look as good as possible in any presentation mode, then it follows that there are presentation modes in which it will look better than others. Hence it makes sense to attempt to find some congruence between looking better and the probability of any particular presentation mode. I'm not advocating, and I don't believe Lea was either, that the ideal is to create a design that is in some abstract and necessarily highly subjective sense perfect for one particular window size and screen resolution and progressively worse in any other environment, but rather to look as good as possible in the widest possible range of environments while accepting that some environments are going to be more common, and that right now a screen resolution of 1024x768 is perhaps the most common. I think this an honest and honorable goal, and there are many options at our disposal in our attempts to achieve it, one, but only one, of which is certainly relative sizing. Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
At 6/1/2007 10:09 AM, Andrew Maben wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? If I'm missing your point, I'd love to see some clarifying examples. Meanwhile, whilst I do indeed embrace the variability, there are literally infinite possible variations to the size and proportion of the browser viewport. I humbly suggest that it is unreasonable to expect, and frankly, impossible to achieve a design that will be uniformly brilliant in every case. While of course the variety of possible modes of final presentation have to be kept in mind, the initial design work is going to have to take place on a fixed-size canvas. If one sets what I think is the reasonable aim of producing a design that will look as good as possible in any presentation mode, then it follows that there are presentation modes in which it will look better than others. Hence it makes sense to attempt to find some congruence between looking better and the probability of any particular presentation mode. I'm not advocating, and I don't believe Lea was either, that the ideal is to create a design that is in some abstract and necessarily highly subjective sense perfect for one particular window size and screen resolution and progressively worse in any other environment, but rather to look as good as possible in the widest possible range of environments while accepting that some environments are going to be more common, and that right now a screen resolution of 1024x768 is perhaps the most common. I think this an honest and honorable goal, and there are many options at our disposal in our attempts to achieve it, one, but only one, of which is certainly relative sizing. Very well stated, Andrew. In my experience on the markup/styling/programming side of website production, one of the problems I've had working with graphic designers (which nearly always means print designers) is that they come up with one single page design and figure their job is done. When I translate that to the web I often have to do the rest of the design job -- primarily, figuring out how the design will morph when text and window sizes change. I'm handed a single still-frame and asked to produce the movie, and often hear complaints when every other frame of the movie looks different from the first. Well, that's just the reality of the medium. I prioritize the various aspects of the original design so that, as it changes, the mutated forms carry the most aspects of the designer's vision to the user. Here's the kind of priority list I'm talking about, assuming a typical web page of text and images: - The text on the page must be readable as text size increases. This is my bottom line: if you can't read the text, the page has failed in its fundamental transaction with the viewer and loses its reason for existing. - The page layout should survive to the greatest extent possible. These days I like to size block widths in ems so that the whole page enlarges with the font, preserving the proportions of the design. (Whether the images should resize along with their containers differs from one job to the next.) I halt enlargement at window width so that folks with weak vision aren't forced to scroll horizontally (that would merely drive most people away). This means that the blocks on the page maintain their proportions and positional relationships until we reach the window width, then they start distorting, stretching vertically. - When the page contains two or more columns of text (true of nearly all pages I'm given to produce), a couple of things can happen: a) The layout stops expanding horizontally at window width, becoming in practical terms a fixed-width layout; continued text enlargement will eventually cause text to spill out of its containers, overlap, and become unreadable. The hope is that by allowing the layout to expand to window width before halting, the user will have had a chance to enlarge the font so much that they'll be able to read it before spill-over occurs. b) The columns can be floated next to one another so that when the horizontal space can no longer contain them they begin to drop down from a horizontal sequence to a vertical sequence. Both of these scenarios dramatically alter the original graphic
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Andrew Maben wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? Wow, this discussion is incredibly reactive for such a group. The proactive stance accepts and understands the web's craziness. It accepts that currently the majority of the access comes through the desktop/laptop computer. However, the proactive stances also accepts that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change, with the advent of mobile devices with access to the internet. The iPhone will have a huge impact, not just because it can access the internet, but because it can access the internet with Safari, a HTML browser. And of course, the iPod have shown us just how 'cool' Apple gadgets are, and how quickly they are adopted. I think the base recommendation now is to ensure that your data is marked up semantically. This way, no matter which stance you take, it's probably not that hard to change. From there, you need to decide how long this particular design is going to last. If it is going to last less than 3 years, then your target audience is probably the desktop/laptop (the reactive stance). After three to five years, you're going to need to be reactive again, and re-design the site, again. However, many sites now aim for some long term consistency and stability (eg. eBay, Amazon). In that case, you should research mobile devices as they will play a huge role (the pro-active stance). [It's well known that a pro-active stance, in any area, leads to better success than a reactive. Reactive is usually about playing 'catch-up'] Yes, this includes the forever-joked about Internet fridge. All these devices will have access. The question isn't so much about discrimination against the users, because it will be them discriminating against *you* because of your site that's not mobile-ready. Do you want to cut yourself off from that market? How will you explain that to your employer/client in a few years time? Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
At 6/1/2007 07:29 PM, Katrina wrote: However, the proactive stances also accepts that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change, with the advent of mobile devices with access to the internet. The iPhone will have a huge impact, not just because it can access the internet, but because it can access the internet with Safari, a HTML browser. And of course, the iPod have shown us just how 'cool' Apple gadgets are, and how quickly they are adopted. Kat, I appreciate your comments on proactive vs. reactive web engineering. Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices, at least. It's that enormous spectrum of larger monitors that are lumped together as one (media type screen) that give designers such headaches. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Jermayn, Can you send me those examples and I may be able to make the case here :) Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few others which they used as examples... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few others which they used as examples... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
1024x768 would be my choice. -- Cem Meric | http://www.kalkadoon.net/ Kalkadoon Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:31 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Ok, I cannot find all of them but hear are a few just we just deal or have dealt with: http://www.watercorporation.com.au/index.cfm http://wa.gov.au http://www.nrma.com.au (splash screen) http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au I am sure there woul dbe more as well [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:51:20 am Hi Jermayn, Can you send me those examples and I may be able to make the case here :) Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few others which they used as examples... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage) warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
At 5/31/2007 08:31 PM, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Ideally, I believe the baseline should be no assumption of screen size. Look at the spectrum of user agents: screen readers, Braille readers, handhelds, PCs, Macs, etc. Which populations of users will you choose to deny access to your sites? Design your sites so that they can be read on any of these devices and you'll be at the top of your field. Sure, read the stats, but don't misinterpret them. They won't really show you who to target. All they'll show you is how many people you can exclude by building fancy stairs and no ramps. Even if you could predict the screen size of a visual user agent, you still wouldn't know how large the user will size their browser window. Window size is more significant than screen resolution. A lot of PC users (including myself) maximize their windows by default, but that's by no means universal. For some interesting stats analysis see: Actual Browser Sizes by Thomas Baekdal http://baekdal.com/reports/Actual-Browser-Sizes/ Even if you could predict screen size and window width, you still wouldn't know how large the user has sized their text. How easy is it to enlarge text so that it spills out of your column widths, overlaps with other text or disappears off-screen, and becomes unreadable? With ingenuity you can design a page that works well with a wide variety of window widths and text sizes. Consider sizing page width in ems and max-width at 100% to let the page expand up to but not exceeding window width. Consider floating columns side-by-side so that they stack vertically when the window is too narrow for a multi-column layout. There's much, much more, but that's a start. I strongly recommend you join the CSS-D listserve and read their wiki: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
If you look around the web today you will see the general consensus is 1024x768px. However, I would have a look at you stats to see what is the most appropriate for your site. For example my blog 800x600 accounts for less than 2.5% of the traffic, for my work site it is over 17%. If I was redesigning my work site it would be a 800x600 baseline. You also need to make sure the site is usable in mobile browsers. Surveys shows over 10% of mobile phone users have browsed web site on their phone. -- Nick Cowie http://nickcowie.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
There was a huge topic on digg about this (that i started :D ) after yahoo released their new interface. Lot's of interesting comments in that thread. http://digg.com/programming/Is_it_Time_to_Abandon_800x600_ link to blog post (as it has changed since the digg): http://www.skeymedia.com/programming/xhtml-and-css/is-it-time-to-abandon-800x600/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Earlier I was suggesting that, instead of stats telling us who to target, they really tell us who to exclude. A fellow poster wrote: my blog 800x600 accounts for less than 2.5% of the traffic That poster appeared to be advocating for leniency, but let's take this example of screen resolution stats and turn them around. Let's say his stats apply to your website audience as well. 800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen resolution (window width not mentioned). Let's say you design your site to look good at 1024 but crappy at 800. Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience. Is this what you want? Ask yourself not how many people you want to have a good experience on your site but rather how many people you want to have a crappy experience. What's your expected site traffic? 100 visitors a day? So two to three people every day will have a crappy experience on your site. 1,000 visitors a day? About 25 people every day will have a crappy experience on your site. 10,000 visitors a day? About 250 people every day will have a crappy experience on your site. Why would anyone want this? Why do web designers even think this way? For the most part, I think, they don't. They read the stats the other way around: they think, oh, great! 97.5% of my users will have a good experience! And they stop thinking there. Instead of trying to solve the problem they're relieved that the problem can be expressed as such a small number. Instead of thinking, How can I make this work for everyone? they're thinking, Can I make this work for most? What's the cost of expediency? Can I afford to piss off a few people in order satisfy a lot? So they don't actually perform the thought-experiments that lead to innovation and new design. This, I believe, is where you come in. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
