Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
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 0.3% 1920x1440 69 0.1% 2560 x ?68 0.1% 1018 x ?29 0.0% 2048x76828 0.0% 640x480 22 0.0% 960x720 16 0.0% 1344 x ?14 0.0% 1536 x ?13 0.0% 1360 x ?12 0.0% 1200 x ?12 0.0% 1000 x ?10 0.0% 3840 x ?10 0.0% 1120 x ?7 0.0% 3200 x ?7 0.0% 1268 x ?6 0.0% 5120 x ?5 0.0% 2304 x ?5 0.0% 1160 x ?5 0.0% 819 x ? 5 0.0% 720x480 4 0.0% 784 x ? 4 0.0% It's a insurance site. Vistors aged mostly 25-45. regards Martin ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 open at full width of the monitor. The user may or may not have on of those sidebars open in the browser. That side bar may or may not be large. That makes those numbers pretty meaningless in my eyes. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.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] Browser Resolutions
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 window ? That is what interests me. Sorry, didn't catch this one. The user may or may not have the browser window open at full width of the monitor. The user may or may not have on of those sidebars open in the browser. That side bar may or may not be large. That makes those numbers pretty meaningless in my eyes. You're right, but I wouldn't say that this data is meaningless. It just leaves too much space for misinterpretation ;-) You can at least get an overview how many visitors use resolutions which make it possible to use a sidebar without switching it on/off every time you open a new site. IMHO there are too much fixed-width sites out there to make a sidebar usable with a x-resoultion 1024px. regards Martin ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 variables... Yes! I always compare the resolution and the browser statistics page... And yes, I already filed a feature request for our online controlling service to include viewport sizes in the reports ;-) regards Martin ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 return of resolution does not necessarily mean that the user has the window maximised. Regards, Ric 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 for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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: Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
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 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 return of resolution does not necessarily mean that the user has the window maximised. Regards, Ric 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 for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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 ** Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
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 resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 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 resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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. What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions. In order to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have the figures as a guide. It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x% of people have the same resolution as you Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data. I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data. But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data. Stephen Lachlan Hunt wrote: 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 resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 sites without using the scroll bars, now we designso that the content fits comfortably in 800x600 so our uses don't have tomove their heads!somewhere between 15 and 25 words per line appears tobe comfortable for most people. Charlie http://www.bartlettdesign.co.uk On 12/15/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I made my point in the original post.While I agree thatsites should work at any resolution, and some (many possibly) people don't browse with browser maximised.What I can't do is supply all theimages for a site at 10x10 pixels in case someone using a PDA wants toview the site.What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions.Inorder to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have thefigures as a guide.It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x% of people have the same resolution asyou Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data.I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data.But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data.StephenLachlan Hunt wrote: 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 resolution is essentially irrelevant.It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space.The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen.In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution.So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless.**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Browser Resolutions
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 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. What I CAN do is try to make the site presentable at any resolution and optimize the images etc. for certain resolutions. In order to satisfy the majority in this case, I would like to have the figures as a guide. It is also useful to tell clients that What you want won't work becuase only x % of people have the same resolution as you Rather than make up the figures, it is better to have hard data. I AM AWARE of the limitations of using screen-resolution data. But it doesn't completely invalidate the collection of such data. Stephen Lachlan Hunt wrote: 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 resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. ** 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] 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. Could those of you with access to good stats packages for your sites please tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. The stats say visitors screen-resolution *width* is between 640 and 2400 - with a few exceptions. That's all I have been able to read from stats, so I design for that range - with a few exceptions. I'm always mis-represented, as I have a resolution of 3840. Have no idea what 'resolution-group' that ends up in in the stats, but it really doesn't matter since it will be wrong anyway. Summary: stats don't tell much. OTOH: I also design for screens below 640, and can't see the problem with large images. If they aren't necessary then they are left out at narrow screen-widths. If they are necessary then they are rescaled to go on whatever width those screens may have - 'max-width: 95%;' or something. The rest is left to visitors own choice of hardware and software - not stats. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 Czech only) -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Browser Resolutions
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 is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Browser Resolutions
I've been watching this thread as being utterly relevant to what I have been thinking a lot on. A lot I believe still browse at 800, and hating bottom scrollbars (seen wayyy too often, I have been looking for answers. AN excellent article (see his demo!) is the man in blue: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/09/21/ Test the demo at different resolutions...one column text becomes 3 at 1024, one at 800, right menu left aligned etc... This is a very interesting and very relevant topic, no magic answers but I would love to see more solutions...including % margins etc to deal with high res without miles of text. I for one hate seeing narrow sites with yards of blank space, or the sometimes seen left aligned sites on the left even. So far I use fluid widths with the text eaxpanding to fit... Bruce Prochnau BKDesign Solutions - Original Message - From: Lachlan 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, it seems as if users visiting with resolutions of 800x600 are around the 1% margin... It is the viewport size that matters, the screen resolution is essentially irrelevant. It is an invalid assumption that everyone surfs with a maximised browser window; or even if it is, that it takes up all the space. The browser may also have a sidebar or anything else which can take up any amount of space. Personally, my screen resolution is 1280x1024, but my browser window is usually around 900x900 - I do not like a browser taking up my whole screen. In fact, that is even narrower than a maximised browser on 1024x768. dd a sidebar to that, which would be roughly 200px wide when open, that leaves less than 700px width for the web site to play with, which is almost half the width of my screen resolution. So please understand that any screen resolution statistics you find will be nothing short of completely useless. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 important presentational technique. I don't want to read 20 posts from people telling me to use liquid layouts because that's not an issue in this thread 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. If no-one can do that or is willing to do it then I don't mind, but I believe that the list does not need another fixed-width vs. liquid debate. Thanks Stephen. Christian Montoya wrote: 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 is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 ** ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 need, please? Thank you for that. It was useful, (if also in Czech.:) ). The reason I asked for people to get first-hand data is because it tends to be more reliable. Also, all the stats (like 3 sets) that I've looked at have shown around 1% of people with a resolution of 800x600 or a corresponding view port size. I was hoping for some simple, easy to carry-out verification of this, that's all. Stephen ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 site, mostly 18-25 yr olds. ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 length are much friendlier. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fflinelength.html -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. 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] Browser Resolutions
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. shown around 1% of people with a resolution of 800x600 or a corresponding view port size. 13.1% had 800x600 screens. 28.0% had viewport up to 800px wide. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Browser Resolutions
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 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). -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 in graphics card) ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 bastard standard 1280x1024 for the standard 4/3 non-standard 1280x960. I have several doze configs around here that can do neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050, but can do 1152x864 and 1600x1200 or more. -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. 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] Browser Resolutions
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 graphics adapter drivers substitute the non-standard 5/4 bastard standard 1280x1024 for the standard 4/3 non-standard 1280x960. I have several doze configs around here that can do neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050, but can do 1152x864 and 1600x1200 or more. These popular dell laptops, of which I have one, do 1280 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 widescreen. Not very typical at all. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Browser Resolutions
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 available on both of my desktops... one is an ATI 9700Pro and the other a GeForce 6500. And the above should have been 4:3 not 3:4 (I think someone else already caught my goof). 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x960 are all 4:3 ratios I believe. Some of this weird stuff on laptops of recent is really annoying. My CEO is constantly asking why everything looks out of whack on his... -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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] Browser Resolutions
Hi Stephen, Another point worth mentioning, which was raised by my all-seeing manager, is that even though people's default screen resolution generally falls in the 1024x768 mark, they often browse in a smaller window. This kind of throws a spanner in the works for those wanting to boost 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 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 tell what the %es of users with different resolutions is. I KNOW that a good site should display well at any resolution BUT when it comes to things like down-sampling images and the like, this sort of info can be very useful. Thanks Stephen ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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 laptops? i don't even have that option on my machine (basic intel built in graphics card) It's a standard 4:3 screen resolution, so any graphics card should support it by default. Sounds like a deficiency in your Intel graphics. I use this resolution myself, as I don't like the slight aspect ratio distortions I get using 1280x1024. (Skulks away realising none of this is on-topic ...) -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** 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] Browser Resolutions
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: http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=meyequau The site is (www.mey.com.au). 90% of users are accessing it with Internet Explorer and the resolution is almost exactly divided between 800x600 (@ 43%) and 1024x768 (@ 44%). I hope this helps :-) Lloyd On 12/16/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 important presentational technique. I don't want to read 20 posts from people telling me to use liquid layouts because that's not an issue in this thread 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. If no-one can do that or is willing to do it then I don't mind, but I believe that the list does not need another fixed-width vs. liquid debate. Thanks Stephen. Christian Montoya wrote: 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 is dealing with IE, since it doesn't do max-width. Sometimes I give IE a fixed width, and sometimes I use Javascript to force max-width on it. A couple of articles on dealing with large images in liquid layouts: http://www.clagnut.com/sandbox/imagetest/ http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/ -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 ** ** 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 **
