RE: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
I've also seen a lot of people with big screens re-size their browser windows to about 1024x768/800x600-ish. M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2008 3:46 PM To: wsg@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 for > 1024x768 and not > worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make > it more > complicated and am interested to hear people's views. > FWIW - I work at a computer training lab, teaching computer skills to a very wide age group. A significant number of students switch the nominally 1280 x 960 19" display to 800 x 600. Just my 41 cents. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management & Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management & Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management & Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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 for > 1024x768 and not > worry about smaller resolutions? I know applications like Google Desktop make > it more > complicated and am interested to hear people's views. > FWIW - I work at a computer training lab, teaching computer skills to a very wide age group. A significant number of students switch the nominally 1280 x 960 19" display to 800 x 600. Just my 41 cents. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 incorporates page zoom and font resizing
> in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom
> we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the
> end-user.
...
"Resize" as generally applied within web design discussions doesn't seem to
have have a good clear meaning. It seems to me that in most cases it is
assumed equivalent to using a text sizer or text zoom function in the browser
or built into the page with alternate stylesheets or script, tools designed
for use as defense mechanisms to be used against the designer's wish for text
some arbitrarily smaller size than whatever the user's default is (body
{font-size: 76%}), or some arbitrary size that disregards user wishes or
needs (px text sizes).
OTOH, the possibility to "resize" at the base level, in the browser's default
settings, gets ignored, or assumed to be something that users almost
universally leave unchanged.
As to the former we should remember that defense mechanisms, including page
zoom, are exactly what they are. When the design respectfully and competently
embraces the idea that the viewport is fluid and that not everyone uses
800x600 or 1024x768 or any particular other screen resolution default text
size, then the need to defend and the ugly consequences of defense are avoided.
Get your work to work across a reasonable range of text size to em width
viewport ratios and the need to defend is reduced; possibly, and ideally, to
zero.
--
"Where were you when I laid the earth's
foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 "relative sizes" - font-size dependent layouts, without looking into the potential problems created by such a "framed" approach. 1: wanting or having a need for larger text, doesn't mean one has or want a larger screen and/or browser-window. 2: having a larger screen and/or browser-window, doesn't mean one wants or need larger text. Thus, "relative sizes" means a/the layout only works well within a certain window-size on a certain screen-resolution with a certain font-size, and can not adapt well to the end-user's environment and needs if they deviate from the designer's "frame". Sounds designer-friendly enough since they get to keep the designed proportions, but is not what I would call user-friendly. Page zoom in Opera, Firefox 3 and Safari 3 allow layouts to adjust to the end-user's environment and needs - unless the designer has declared "relative sizes" and/or other width-barriers. Since this user-friendly zoom-feature seems to be on its way in - after having been found only in Opera for years, it would be better if designers tried to make sure it could actually work as intended instead of designing for certain "relative or absolute sized frames". 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 incorporates page zoom and font resizing in various forms in order to enhance the experience, so the more freedom we give those browsers to perform their job the easier it'll be for the end-user. Optimizing our designs for an "average" window-size is an ok approach IMO, as long as we don't "lock them in" so they fail too badly outside that "average" window. Personally I optimize for a range of 600 - 1200 in width, and am now working on extending the "don't fail too badly" range to 200 - 2400 in width by giving the browsers more freedom to determine proportions. I also get to keep _my_ design-proportions, since I design for the way browsers treat my layouts and make as much out of the many variables introduced by browsers and their various options as I possibly can. I use 3800 wide screens/browser-windows and mobile browser emulators to test on, and although there may be quite a few problems getting older browsers "perfectly" in line, I see no real problems in getting the new ones to play ball. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 pixel wide image is 4 inches wide on some screens but just over an inch wide on others. I have no great answers because the devices visiting a website are so varied today, but you need to think about before you design. Nick *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 me "Accommodate for" simply means: - the breaking point at which the page loses its utter most usability, so for example in GMail the usability drastically reduces under a resolution below 800x600 So re-iterate, the page should be as usable as possible; meaning all elements (apart from the content area) should be too large and not too small under resolutions up to 800x600. But in all its essence of what you say - absolutely correct. Web pages should be able to scale gracefully under very small (800x600) to very large (1920x1080) resolutions. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 resolution means you're designing against all the others. An > "800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, > about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size > measured in inches or mm. > > Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive > list): > 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, > 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, > 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. > > Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have > nothing > more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is > what > print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such > thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages > designed > for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. > > Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the > environment > figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to > design > for the medium and the people who use it. > > http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels > http://cssliquid.com/ > -- > "Where were you when I laid the earth's > foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV > > Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 > > Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 resolution means you're designing against all the others. An "800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size measured in inches or mm. Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive list): 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design for the medium and the people who use it. http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels http://cssliquid.com/ -- "Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?"Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
For Mobile Browsing you generally take different approaches altogether, especially for WebKit powered phones (the iPhone and the to come GPhone). This is generally because you will be providing completely different navigational structures and really narrowing down on the most important features. Google has "Mobile alternatives" and that is really where developers should be heading when making web pages for Mobile Browsing. Im also wondering how is designing to 800x600 going to make information inaccessible and un-usable? GMail is designed for 800x600 + and is superbly usable. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what about mobile browsing? > > > > the iphone is having quite the impact on mobile computing and designing to > 800x600 is going to mean you're likely making information inaccessible and > un-usable > > > > designing to a screen size is like designing to one browser > > > > my advice - > > > > 1. profile your users and know who they are, what they want, what they > need, what their online behaviour > > 2. turn profile information into functional and non-functional (design) > requirements > > 3. design to meet those needs > > 4. validate design solutions 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 design for 800x600 screens? > > 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! > > I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond > 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is > providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google > Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, > then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. > > Thats my two cents. > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested >> to hear people's views. >> >> IceKat >> >> PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to >> see mail archives to see the responses. >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *** >> >> > > > -- > - Anton Babushkin > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- > NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities > other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and > telephone SMS Management & Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views > expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except > where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management > & Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management & Technology does > not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this > communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from > errors, virus, interception or interference. > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Nick, you have subscribed to the Web Standards Group discussion list. If you don't want to receive the mailings, follow the link at the bottom of the email marked 'Unsubscribe' to unsubscribe. Jason 2008/6/10 Web Marketing Experts - Nick Bell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Please remove me from this email chat. > > > > warm *regards*, > > > > NICK BELL - WEB MARKETING EXPERTS > > *INTELLIGENT **WEBMARKETING ** * > > www.webmarketingexperts.com.au > > PH +61 3 9667 0150 > > FAX +61 3 9667 0134 > > MOB +61 420 244 738 > > * * > > *"Getting your site on Google 1st 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 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! > > I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond > 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is > providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google > Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, > then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. > > Thats my two cents. > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested > to hear people's views. > > IceKat > > PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to > see mail archives to see the responses. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > > > > -- > - Anton Babushkin > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: > 14/05/2008 4:44 PM > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: > 14/05/2008 4:44 PM > > *** > 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
what about mobile browsing? the iphone is having quite the impact on mobile computing and designing to 800x600 is going to mean you're likely making information inaccessible and un-usable designing to a screen size is like designing to one browser my advice - 1. profile your users and know who they are, what they want, what they need, what their online behaviour 2. turn profile information into functional and non-functional (design) requirements 3. design to meet those needs 4. validate design solutions 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 design for 800x600 screens? 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! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management & Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management & Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management & Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
Please remove me from this email chat. warm regards, NICK BELL - WEB MARKETING EXPERTS INTELLIGENT WEBMARKETING HYPERLINK "http://www.webmarketingexperts.com.au/"www.webmarketingexperts.com.au PH +61 3 9667 0150 FAX +61 3 9667 0134 MOB +61 420 244 738 “Getting your site on Google 1st 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 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! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** List Guidelines: HYPERLINK "http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm"; \nhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: HYPERLINK "http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm"; \nhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: HYPERLINK "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008 4:44 PM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 14/05/2008 4:44 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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! I think the big question is how scalable your web page becomes beyond 800x600 and that all really depends on the kind of content your web site is providing. If its something which can be extremelly useful for a Google Desktop application then perhaps you need to take that into account. If not, then perhaps rethink your strategy/approach. Thats my two cents. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested > to hear people's views. > > IceKat > > PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to > see mail archives to see the responses. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 really need to look at it from a few angles: - Your intended audience i.e. Intranet users most likely won't be viewing your site on their mobiles or Playstations. But users of a social networking site might. - Screen resolution data. i.e. If you expect 95% of your audience to be using 800x600 then there is a compelling reason to optimize for that >> adapt to user's needs I agree - adapt to user's needs. However, a liquid layout in my opinion does not always offer that. Liquid layouts are generally a good idea, but are not always perfect. For example, how do you create a liquid layout to cater for a mobile and a widescreen plasma? You might try something like Switchy McLayout found at A List Apart [2], but these different mediums really require tailored content. Adapting to the user's needs in this case means providing different content and maybe even a different interface. To clarify my position though - I would agree with Jakob Nielson in the general sense, keeping my audience in mind. But knowing your user's will give you more insight into what you _should_ do. -- Matt Fellows http://www.onegeek.com.au/ [1] - http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html [2] - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/switchymclayout *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 default but my wife's 1st gen Linux one has a much smaller screen and (I think) has a max 800x600 res - I know a lot of geeks who've picked up one of these as a travelling tool because they're just that much easier to manage on a plane or in a briefcase. I was using Her one last night to check on some details about a program we were watching on TV and getting very frustrated at having to scroll sideways to see the sidebar on the right. Other small-form user devices will have similar issues. I think I used my Palm Tungsten PDA a whole 1 time to surf and then decided to use something else with a decent screen size. And then there's the people who have nice big screens but have reduced viewports because using the web is only part of what they do and they really need to see as much of that spreadsheet as they can if the users are internal and they work on smaller screens, you would. As someone else said, fluid design is the way to go, when you know you can't control every user's technology and/or preferences. And it'll work better in the future when the technology changes again. cheers mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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. 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested to hear people's views. IceKat PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to see mail archives to see the responses. *** 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] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
>>> 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 Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Should we design for 800x600 screens?
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 > 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 Google Desktop make it more complicated and am interested > to hear people's views. > > IceKat > > PS- If this has been asked before I apologise and ask if it's possible to > see mail archives to see the responses. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira Web Designer Itajubá - MG - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
