Stephen,
Our statistic of last week:
1024x76840753 60.4%
1280x1024 14808 21.9%
800x600 51967.7%
1152x86428784.3%
na 18082.7%
1400 x ?693 1.0%
1600x1200 494 0.7%
1440 x ?307 0.5%
1680 x ?172
On 16 Dec 2005, at 5:28 pm, Martin Heiden wrote:
Our statistic of last week:
[snipped]
Those numbers refer to the resolution of the monitor, right ?
What would this tell me about the size of the browser window ? That
is what interests me.
The user may or may not have the browser window
Philippe,
on Friday, December 16, 2005 at 09:46 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
On 16 Dec 2005, at 5:28 pm, Martin Heiden wrote:
Our statistic of last week:
[snipped]
Those numbers refer to the resolution of the monitor, right ?
What would this tell me about the size of the browser
Martin Heiden wrote:
IMHO there are too much fixed-width sites out there to make a sidebar
usable with a x-resoultion 1024px.
Unless one uses Opera and has it set to 'fit to window width'.
Lots or variables...
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
Gunlaug,
on Friday, December 16, 2005 at 11:36 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
Martin Heiden wrote:
IMHO there are too much fixed-width sites out there to make a sidebar
usable with a x-resoultion 1024px.
Unless one uses Opera and has it set to 'fit to window width'.
Lots or
Slightly off-list but important all the same.
I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at
1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of
800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access to
good stats packages for your sites please
Whilst stats can tell some stories, your question is almost one of those
how long is a piece of string? types. Screen resolutions vary with
target audiences. I have clients with agricultural based sites where I
am still getting reports of screens at 640 x 480! Don't forget either
that the
Design for 800 600 and work with the restrictions I say. Don't forget a lot of laptop and a handheld devices will need to look at your site also.
Thanks,Paul
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:42:27 +1100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Slightly off-list but important all the same.
I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at
1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of
800x600 are around the 1% margin...
It is the viewport size that matters, the screen
I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box
is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base
rule for site design.
In the end it works out to 760px wide total content surrounded by
pretty colors in the margins.
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Slightly
I thought I made my point in the original post. While I agree that
sites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people
don't browse with browser maximised. What I can't do is supply all the
images for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants to
view the site.
This might help you, Screen Res is near the bottom somewhere.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspThe latest figures are for July, so its a little out of date.
I agree with Bobs point though, it interesting that we used to design for 800x600 so all our visitors could read our
Can't give you the stats but the 550px max width for text rule-of-
thumb I use sort of dictates image sizes. (about 250px - 300px wide
max).
I've also found with clients that I often have to design for thier
browser/monitor no matter my well-founded arguments to the contrary:-}
I thought
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Slightly off-list but important all the same.
I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at
1024x768. Now, tho, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions
of 800x600 are around the 1% margin. Could those of you with access
to good stats packages
It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is
essentially irrelevant.
And everyone should remember this. I have 2560x1024 and available canvas
in browsers about 900px wide.
There are some graphs:
http://weblog.jakpsatweb.cz/b/1108565041-mereni-sirky-okna-v-grafech.html
(in
I think all your problems would be solved if you stopped designing
fixed width sites. Or at least most of your problems. I make sites
that look fine from 640px to 1280px. I use max-width to keep them from
getting too wide. I never have to think twice about what resolution to
support. The hard part
Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Slightly off-list but important all the same.
I traditionally design sites to look good at 800x600 and best at
1024x768. Now, tho
I DON'T DESIGN FIXED WIDTH SITES. -- unless the client really wants it
and they have a good reason
I don't want to scale images until all major browsers support
antialiased or bicubic scaling methods.
I don't want to clip images because I believe that correct proportions
and good cropping is an
Jan Brasna wrote:
I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server
logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me.
I posted link to charts. Not only with resolution (which is mostly
irrelevant) but with viewport sizes as well. What more particularly do
you
Stephen Stagg wrote:
I WAS hoping that a couple of kind people might look at their server
logs or stats and read off the resolution and % data for me.
my stats are here:
http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=statssite=s11hondaswapreport=73
based on roughly 500,000 page views a month
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I once read on the A List Apart web site that a 550px wide text box
is about the limit of comfortable reading, so I use that as my base
rule for site design.
550px gives me only about 40 characters per line (28px default),
normally much too narrow.
Widths based upon line
It was useful, (if also in Czech.:) )
Good to hear :)
I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more
reliable.
Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick
an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your
audience.
Jan Brasna wrote:
I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more
reliable.
Well, as someone smart said - you have to look at your own data to pick
an appropriate solution. Other's data may not neccessarily fit your
audience.
Hi,
I agree, but still it's
Michael Wilson wrote:
I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my
machine (basic intel built
Michael Wilson wrote:
I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Many graphics adapter drivers substitute the non-standard 5/4
On 12/15/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Wilson wrote:
I agree, but still it's interesting. I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Many
Brian Cummiskey wrote:
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on laptops? i don't even have that option on my
machine (basic intel built in graphics card)
I have 1280x960
the
minimum requirements for websites.
--
Paul A Noone
Webmaster, ASHM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stephen Stagg
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 12:11 AM
To: WSG
Subject: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
Slightly off-list
On 16/12/05 7:07 AM, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Wilson wrote:
I was surprised to see (in the data
Brian posted) so few users at a 1280 x 960 setting. We have a large
percentage who use this (I suppose because it is a 3:4 resolution).
Isn't 1280x960 mostly on
Stephen,
A site I maintain is used mainly by lawn mower/hardware shops. It is
not uncommon to walk into one and find a network of 5 computers
running Windows 95! The computers are far from being up to date but
you may find these statistics of some use:
30 matches
Mail list logo
