Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
On 7/26/05 12:12 AM SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html 800x600 seems a bit prehistoric... Now, you should think about getting your shift key fixed! ;-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
We use the stats here to guide our general design choices. In our case we still consder that 800 x 600 is used by a significant number of users. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (Use stats with caution) Having said that, there will always be specific clients with a targeted customer base who choose to do it differently. Clive Walker CVW Web Design Ltd http://www.cvwdesign.com http://www.cvwdesign.co.uk +00 44 1403 260722 07855 590013 UK mobile This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately. If this is the case, you should not use, disclose, copy or distribute this communication. - Original Message - From: Rick Faaberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf) On 7/26/05 12:12 AM SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html 800x600 seems a bit prehistoric... Now, you should think about getting your shift key fixed! ;-) Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
Sunny, I couldn't agree with you more. If a web designer believes they are worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely? Cheers, Blair On 26/07/05, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone, everywhere ! *applause* i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason... i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor. recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics (browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites (not belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed. i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise at years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed to the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little rude (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got back: Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on something so banal.. umm... accessibility is banal? another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise.. so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the fact that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to be in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care what it looks like for me. sunny ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Blair Millen http://theletter.co.uk http://doepud.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
Hi Sunny, I'll jump right to it and I will tell you NO you are not wrong to hope that. Most sites can and should scale down to 800x600 resolution without to much effort for their makers. Bad news is ... they wont change easily, it's too convenient to work at large resolution: you wont have to divide your content, you can have a lot of advertising, etc ... oh, and it looks cool when you pitch it to your client (which could be in the first place the one who ask for it). All it's good here in Weberland :) Or is it not ? I'm all to aware of bad designer's attitude and lack of understanding of web standards, but more importantly lack of understanding of what accessibility and usability really are, or in the end respect for their users or their users needs. Well here are some spoilers : Web standards are about attitude. Attitude about coding : xthml, css and so on, are simply the grammar of a common language we use - the WEB language. Like any language though, simply knowing this grammar ( or having a logo saying hey I'm standard compliant xhtml, css, etc ) means only that your page can be read correctly by any software that handles correctly the grammar of the programming language you use, it does not put meaning to your words. It is not required for your users to know that grammar, in fact the overwhelming majority won't know it, nor will they benefit more from your site if they know it, nor should they know it to be able to use your site. Attitude about coding means, in my humble opinion, sticking to that grammar and use it only for what grammar should be used. And clean code and separated structure, content and presentation off course ! Attitude about accessibility: it means (again in my humble opinion) you have to serve your content to ANY user in a manner that's APPROPRIATE for he or she. It does not mean you have to push them to your standards of how your content should be received, and sticking some access keys won't magically solve that. Accessibility means helping ALL your users get the meaning of your content regardless of what they use or cannot use to get to your content. How many designers or developers see the handheld style sheet as a way to present a smaller version of your site instead of scaling down the big one ? It's not impossible or impractical ... and it's ok if your site looks slightly differently on a handheld or something else. From the very beginning IT'S SUPPOSED TO. And that is true for smaller resolutions too. I'm not trying to teach anyone on this list how to code or how to think, there are to many members of this list from whom I only have to learn and to them i apologize for this post. I'm not trying to sell flowers to the gardeners, nor do i try advocacy here. It is however my opinion that to many web designers and developers jump to code without any delay and maybe for them this could be useful ... That way Sunny, me and many others like us won't have to wonder what stinks in Weberland ?
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
I couldn't agree with you more. If a web designer believes they are worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely? Me too. I like my sites to work well on mobile phones and PDAs too - where a screen as big as 800x600 seems like luxury! HTML was designed to work as a flexible presentation medium. I hate the rigidity of making it work like paper :) Cheers! Anthony -- www.fonant.com - hand-crafted web sites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper
Sunny wrote: i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. I build websites. I'm under 40. I have 20/20 vision. My monitor is 1440 x 900 pixels but I too like to surf at 800 pixels wide (although usually taller than 600 pixels: just personal preference). When I come across a site that displays horizontal scrollbars, I *could* expand my browser window... but I could just as is easily hit the back button (which is what I'll probably what I'll do). My computer. My browser. My choice. It's all about choice. Normally choices are made by the designer with the user in mind: readable fonts, good colour schemes, etc. But when it comes to nailing an entire design onto a fixed layout, this is one of those areas where the choice of the designer conflicts directly with the choice of the user. so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? Nope, you are not wrong at all. Sites that only work for a specific resolution are like sites that only work for a specific browser. Whether it's 800 pixels wide, 1024 pixels wide or whatever the latest trend might be, hardcoding widths is a shortsighted strategy. Clive Walker wrote: We use the stats here to guide our general design choices. I think that's missing the point. The goal is not to design for the majority but to design for everybody. As Anthony Cartmell said: HTML was designed to work as a flexible presentation medium. I hate the rigidity of making it work like paper In my opinion, John Allsopp's A Dao of Web Design, though five years old, remains the best and most relevant article ever published on A List Apart: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ BTW, technically this isn't really a standards question as the subject of user-centric, fluid layouts is something that's been around since before CSS/XHTML/etc. but, as a question of best practices, I think most people would agree that it's relevant. -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
On 7/26/05, SunUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. I use a TabletPC to surf the web, on my lap, with a stylus, in portrait mode - so, 768x1024 instead of the other way around. So horizontally, that's narrower than your standard 800x600 screen. I also have a 17 LCD that runs at 1280x1024 natively... sometimes I use it in the loungeroom, lying on the floor or couch, with the font size cranked up 5 or 6 times so I can read comfortably from a distance. Also, I gotta say sometimes I change down to 800x600 to test something, and the type just renders so beautifully at that res I can stare at it for hours. Then I get sick of scrolling :) I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating *any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
It's not starting to, it always has been. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kay Smoljak Sent: 26 July 2005 13:14 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf) I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating *any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
On 7/26/05, TN38 [Admin] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not starting to, it always has been. What I meant was that more people are starting to see it that way. Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for blind people :) -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
quote I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating *any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities. / quote I think it was from the very beginning. Accomodating dissabilities is where work was needed fast and results were needed badly. In time accessibility will mean and do much more than that.
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is online =) On 27 Jul 2005, at 12:42 AM, Kay Smoljak wrote: Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for blind people :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
When I'm making a website for someone else, Ialways make sure there isn't a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600.And instead of just resizing my browser window, I'll actually flip my resolution (which is generally at 1150x860 or something like that) back down. Sinceviewing at low res doesn't just make the browser window smaller, it makes the toolbars, scrollbars and other such items that come along with the browser larger. HOWEVER my own personalsites? Like, the ones that getmaybe 20 hits a month? lol. While I'll check in 800x600 to make sure it isn't toodistorted, I generally don't fret about itas much. I know there are a lot of people whoget into that "Well, people with that small of a resolution should be used to scrollbars by now" theology... but when it comes to making a website that has some sort of information, materials, or anything else that a large number of people are going tobe interested in, accessibility really is key. Actually, the only times that I've ever had touse a fixed width layout at allwerebefore I discovered CSS and used tables/images sliced from photoshop for the design... That's the best thing about table-less layouts. Make the width 90%, 95% or even 100% if that's what suits your fancy. Then you don't have to worry about it being too skinny ona higher resolution, and you don't have to worry about it being to wide for the smaller ones. Just my2 cents. ---Original Message--- From: Terrence Wood Date: 07/26/05 09:02:10 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Terrence Wood Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf) worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is > On 27 Jul 2005, at 12:42 AM, Kay Smoljak wrote: Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for blind people :) ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper
Rick Faaberg wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:41:11 -0700: SunUp wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:38 +1000: i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. I like the highest resolution my equipment can provide, like the difference between dot matrix printer output and 1200x600 laser printer output. It all looks better as resolution increases, making jaggies invisible. I'm over 50 wear trifocals, which makes my vision at best half what it was when I was a teenager. so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? Why not embrace instead of fighting the strength of the web, by going fluid? http://www.digital-web.com/articles/fluid_thinking/ http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that support 2560 x 1600 pixels? http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html 800x600 seems a bit prehistoric... 2560x1600 isn't so new either. Some of you might be surprised how high you can go with ordinary equipment. I set up this 2048x1536 screenshot up on one of 3 identical 19 Dell/Trinitron CRT displays given to me, which were manufactured 60 months ago: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/2048x1536.jpg It has 9 Firefox windows, 7 of which are exactly 800x600, and the other two of which are as indicated. It shows clearly how unfortunately an 800x600 _window_ can display a page even at much higher than typical resolution when an author fails to consider the use of settings other than his own when designing a page. It includes 4 pages variously submitted for site checks: http://www.organicgrowers.org.au/index.php (Vicki S, subatomic body text) http://www.ewriteonline.com/ (Tanya R, persisting foldouts tiny body text) http://www.fragsburg.com/ (Thomas H, overlapping text) http://testdrive.fueladvance.com/Broadleaf/Home/Index.fuel (Tatham O, missing scrollbars) Other there included URLs: http://gemal.dk/browserspy/window.html http://gemal.dk/browserspy/screen.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/dpi-screen-window.html http://www.google.com/ -- If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them. Proverbs 13:24 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
I am also older, and LIKE 800 res. I feel that to be standards acceptable, there is no reason why a site cannot be made fluid, so it fits all resolutions. I see s many sites either a narrow band in the middle at high res, lately one on the left with a mile wide blank space on the right, (looks rediculous), or scrollbars at 800. Fixed width is the culprit here. If that makes me a leper as well, fine. I'll join the other 40% or whatever of users who go with 800. Funny how much is done for 10% for accessibbility (of course) but nothing for 40+% user preferences 40% or whatever, no arguments on this pls. Bruce Prochnau BKDesign Solutions - Original Message - From: SunUp i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason... i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor. recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics (browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites (not belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed. i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise at years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed to the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little rude (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got back: Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on something so banal.. umm... accessibility is banal? another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise.. so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the fact that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to be in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care what it looks like for me. sunny ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
Good afternoon Sunny, I operate a design shop in Dallas, Texas and I always make sure my sites render properly in 800X600 because there is still a high percentage of users setting their screen resolutions to 800X600. I'm not willing to sacrifice or ignore that large audience, which could have a negative impact on my credibility as a designer. In addition, there's no valid reason why a site can't be visually engaging and render properly in a higher resolution. Kind regards, Mario S. Cisneros accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise awareness first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web. A web for everyone, everywhere ! *applause* i have to chime in here on this quoted text, but for another reason... i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play) at 800x600. i LIKE it. many ppl on this list ask the members for opinions on their work. i sometimes nervously reply privately, with a screenshot, to show how it looks on a lower res. i don't often get a response. but i do hear ppl say in their posts how they sacrifice the low res visitor. recently there was a thread about websites dealing with statistics (browsers, resolutions, platforms etc). i went to one of the sites (not belonging to a member here, i think, but a pretty well-known stats site). i couldn't see a third of it without horizontally scrolling. i was amazed and more than a little annoyed. i emailed them. their reply stated that they made the decision years ago not to support 800x600. when i replied and expressed my surprise at years ago i offered a few suggestions about web standards and accessibility, and about this being the world wide web (as opposed to the office wide). i have to confess, i may have sounded a little rude (i was pretty irritated by now) so i probably deserved what i got back: Thanks for the initial comments, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on something so banal.. umm... accessibility is banal? another site i contacted recently (i feel like i'm becoming a one-woman low-res evangelist) responded with Yeah... It's a harsh decision I made. Everything's too skinny otherwise.. so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look right in my browsing environment? should i get with the current trend and go 1024+ ? i honestly want to know if i should just shut up about the fact that i have to horizontally scroll on MANY sites. a large majority of them are designed by folk who i would normally assume to be in the know about this sort of thing, and THEY don't seem to care what it looks like for me. sunny ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper
On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:04 AM, Jeremy Keith wrote: Clive Walker wrote: We use the stats here to guide our general design choices. I think that's missing the point. The goal is not to design for the majority but to design for everybody. It is often not a question of designing for the majority or for everybody, but a question of optimizing the experience. A horizontal scrollbar does not mean the site is broken, it means that it is more difficult to use. Similarly, scaling a graphic with text on it (say, a map) down to 750px wide or 450px tall might mean that you've just made it more difficult for those with high resolution to read. Even more difficult if it's sized to 200px tall, to be above the fold after all the logo and branding and ads and navs up top. Using SVG to scale it would make it more difficult for those using browsers that require an SVG plugin. Using Flash instead would make it more difficult to repurpose the content outside of that proprietary technology. Design can often achieve satisfactory or even exceptional results for everybody. Sometimes, compromises should be made, IMO, and user stats can inform those decisions. But be careful: don't use the stats of websites that publish stats. These are frequented by us; a biased group to be sure. Use the stats of the previous generation of the site you are working on, or similar sites. Two personal cases from this year: 1- we redesigned a site for a big name actor. His old site was 1020px wide, with the content on the left and navigation on the right. Before designing, we ran a screen-size tester on the home page and found 25% of the visitors with javascript enabled had screens 800px wide or narrower. This meant that 25% of the audience did not even know there was navigation on the site, partly explaining why 50% of the visits were to the home page only. 2- we redesigned a site for an interior design firm. The old site was built (by us!) in 1996, and back then maybe 25% of the users had 800x600 screens, so the site was narrow. We ran the screen tester on this audience -- execs and their assistants, artists, and people with a bunch of money to spend on making stuff look good -- and found no one at 800x600, and the average screen res above 1024x768 -- my designer got excited at having a big canvas. On a hunch, I tweaked the code to measure the browser window size: average was now about 800x700, with the big-screen people using a narrow window. Just the same as everyone else. Nothing beats your own stats. But don't use stats as an excuse to exclude people. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
A sincere thank you to everyone who took the time and effort to respond on this, on and off list. I feel somewhat vindicated; there was certainly some unequivocal support. There are also some excellent quotes to use next time I grumble to a site about missing or obscured content. In response to this: sometimes I change down to 800x600 to test something, and the type just renders so beautifully at that res I can stare at it for hours ... I am definitely with you. When I routinely change to 1024 to check that my work is still ok, I'm always relieved to come home to 800. The relief is palpable and sometimes audible (phew!). Anyway, thanks again folks. (Look Rick ^^ caps! ;) sunny. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
