@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: IceKat
Subject: Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:28:18 +1000, IceKat wrote:
Hi,
I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother
designing to
fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Babushkin [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:39 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely!
My
. *CNN Money
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
Behalf Of *Anton Babushkin
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:39 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I would say Absolutely
with those users
5. re-assess needs on a regular basis
m
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anton Babushkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10 June 2008 3:39 PM
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] Should we
On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed:
Should we still bother
designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just
design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions?
Never should have been designing for either one. To design for any
particular
Felix,
I think the term design for is perhaps a little bit inconsistent in terms
of interpretation. Perhaps in this context it was also very badly
misinterpreted.
When I was referring to design for I was more referring to Accommodate
for which in essence is what fluid layouts are all about.
To
I agree with Felix, you have build for your users not for screen resolutions
be it 1280x800, 800x480, 392x320, 240x320 (in the top 20 resolutions
visiting my work website) and the number of pixels per inch is no longer in
the 70 to 100 pixel range, but 70 to 250+ pixel range. So your trusty 280
An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all
measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen
resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and
http://www.sky.com
***
List Guidelines:
Darren West wrote:
An alternative could be to develop with relative sizes for all
measurements, allowing the interface to be scaled to any screen
resolution. Examples can be seen at http://www.linkedin.com and
http://www.sky.com
Dysfunctional examples, but they clearly show what many mean by
On 2008/06/10 12:20 (GMT+0200) Gunlaug Sørtun apparently typed:
...
Since all browsers can also resize fonts (one way or another)
independent of page zoom, relative sizes risk creating even more
problems when both font resizing and page zoom are used.
The latest mobile browsers also
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:28:18 +1000, IceKat wrote:
Hi,
I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother
designing to
fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just design for
1024x768 and not
worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like
make it fluid and everyone will be happy :)
doesn't matter if we have 300px or 1280px, your website should (ok,
with some restrictions, like 800-1024) adapt to user's needs
2008/6/10 IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I have a question I'd like to poll people about. Should we still bother
Rochester oliveira wrote:
adapt to user's needs
That is the key.
If the users are technical you would not bother designing for 800 x 600
screens
if the users are internal and they work on smaller screens, you would.
***
List
Depends on the targeted audience and what designer I work with.
Sometimes we design for 800x600 while other times the designer we create
for 1024 and we have no choice but to use those dimensions whether we
like it or not.
IceKat wrote:
Hi,
I have a question I'd like to poll people about.
Jermayn Parker wrote:
If the users are technical you would not bother designing for 800 x 600
screens
Hmmm? I wonder if that's strictly true, given the surge in ultralite
notebooks like the ASUS EEEPC. My new one ( a 900 - c'mon NZCouriers,
just deliver the thing!) will have 1024 as a
It probably has been asked before - but the answer is likely to change
with time (as monitor sizes vary or normalize) so the question is
still as relevant as ever.
If you were to ask the question to Jakob Nielson, he would say
optimize for 1024x768 [1] and provide a liquid content area.
But you
I would say Absolutely, absoutely and absolutely!
My reasoning for this is simple: what about the rest of those users who *don't
browse the internet with the browser in full screen*? As a matter of fact
I'm doing it right now, so thank god GMail scales gracefully, or I probably
wouldn't use it!
By subject...
Should we design for 800x600 screens
Design for? Not necessarily. Accommodate? Yes.
Cheers.
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
page can turn a hobby into a million-dollar
business.” CNN Money
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anton Babushkin
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:39 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I would say
19 matches
Mail list logo
