Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
document
On 6/4/07, kevin mcmonagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All right-after reading all the posts on this topic ive been reviewing
my rational for sticking with fixed width layouts for the last 50 sites
ive designed.
Where can i find the latest tutorials, articles and examples of creating
relative size
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [No Protective Marking]
document
All right-after reading all the posts on this topic ive been reviewing
my rational for sticking with fixed width layouts for the last 50 sites
ive designed.
Where can i find the latest tutorials, articles and examples of creating
relative sized layouts.
Specifically can anyone recommend a site d
On 2007/06/04 20:09 (GMT+0200) [EMAIL PROTECTED] apparently typed:
> 03 Jun 2007 23:36:40 -0400 Felix Miata wrote (in an entirely separate thread):
>> I only looked in IE7 & FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are
>> on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small.
> I agree wi
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
document
e 04, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski
>>>
>>> Fortunately we can aim stylesheets spe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski
Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices,
Sure we can aim, but I think anyone who has spent half an hour or more
looking into this will
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski
>
> Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices,
Sure we can aim, but I think anyone who has spent half an hour or more
looking into this will tell you that you
On 2007/06/01 13:09 (GMT-0400) Andrew Maben apparently typed:
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a
>> browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the
>> way up as high as high gets
>In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class
>and that ruins it for everyone else.
I don't want to fan the flames, but a moment's thought will tell you a
teacher *doesn't* have to do this. Not a good one, anyway.
An experienced teacher is used to serving a range of abili
On 2 Jun 2007, at 12:29 PM, Katrina wrote:
that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change
...which will bring it back to where it started...
N
___
omnivision. websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/
*
At 6/1/2007 07:29 PM, Katrina wrote:
However, the proactive stances also accepts that position is about
to undergo a 360 degree change, with the advent of mobile devices
with access to the internet. The iPhone will have a huge impact, not
just because it can access the internet, but because it
Andrew Maben wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that
is a
browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the
way up as high as high gets.
With respect, I think this is a rather over si
At 6/1/2007 10:09 AM, Andrew Maben wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a
browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the
way up as high as high gets.
With respect, I think thi
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability
that is a
browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and
all the
way up as high as high gets.
With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response,
Just wanted to add Ithat 've been waiting 10 years for the defacto standard to
be 1024x768. I remember back then being over joyed that I had just moved from
640x480 to 800x600 as the standard resolution. I stupidly thought that 1024 was
just around the corner.
10 years later and I'm still start
On 2007/06/01 11:01 (GMT-0400) Andrew Maben apparently typed:
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote:
>>> Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
>>> when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 10
At 6/1/2007 07:38 AM, Chris Williams wrote:
"...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute,
blind, and crippled kids."
Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... "stupid", "mute", "blind", "crippled"?
Nice choice of words...
Yes, I chose those offensive words deliberately to point up the
Back in my eCommerce days, I ran a very high-tech oriented eStore
where higher resolutions were the norm. Where I work now on my
governmental site which services a very large rural area, I'm pushing
closer to 20% at 800x600. Looking at my stats I see lots of visitors
using old an OS and old
I've come by the axiom that there is no wrong. This means sometimes we have
to not be compliant on some standards issues. I know, it's tough but if the
client says "I WILL HAVE X" then you do it. Sure, you try and get them to
change their mind, show them valid approaches, etc. but in the end - t
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote:
Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure th
"...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled
kids."
Hrm. As a "crippled kid" and possibly even a "stupid kid" I am greatful
that I got any attention.
Good to know there are a few people left in the world that believe only they
have a right to be anything.
Are you
This going anywhere?
Bruce Prochnau
bkdesign
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
"...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute,
bli
"...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute,
blind, and crippled kids."
Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... "stupid", "mute", "blind", "crippled"?
Nice choice of words...
> From: Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
For what it's worth, I often get irritated with 1024x768-mimum layouts,
even though my screen is a wopping 1600x1200.
There's obviously such a thing as incredibly long lines, but even in
cases like the wonderful alistapart.com, I'm irritated that the screen
should necessarily be so wide. I act
Paul Novitski wrote:
>So you're saying that someone using an 800-pixel-wide monitor probably
wouldn't know what it's like to see >the same page with a
1000-pixel-wide monitor?
A user that has they're screen resolution set to 800x600 is well used to
scrolling.
The school analogy wasn't appro
Hi there Tim,
From the stats (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp)
I would say go for 1024x768 but, with that said, whenever possible
(often determined by client requirements and likes/dislikes :) ) go for
a liquid layout that would enable your site to expand and contract ba
Paul Novitski wrote:
>>Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience...
>>800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide
screen resolution (window width not >>mentioned). ...
At 5/31/2007 11:32 PM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:
These visitors probably wouldnt notice t
Paul Novitski wrote:
>>Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience...
>>800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen
resolution (window width not >>mentioned). ...
These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and
1000 wide lay
Earlier I was suggesting that, instead of stats telling us who to
target, they really tell us who to exclude.
A fellow poster wrote:
my blog 800x600 accounts for less than 2.5% of the traffic
That poster appeared to be advocating for leniency, but let's take
this example of screen resolution
There was a huge topic on digg about this (that i started :D ) after
yahoo released their new interface. Lot's of interesting comments in
that thread.
http://digg.com/programming/Is_it_Time_to_Abandon_800x600_
link to blog post (as it has changed since the digg):
http://www.skeymedia.com/prog
If you look around the web today you will see the general consensus is
1024x768px.
However, I would have a look at you stats to see what is the most
appropriate for your site. For example my blog 800x600 accounts for less
than 2.5% of the traffic, for my work site it is over 17%. If I was
redesig
At 5/31/2007 08:31 PM, Tim Offenstein wrote:
Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a
baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
Ideally, I believe the baseline should be no assumption of screen
size. Look at the spectrum of user agents
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote:
> Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline
> when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else?
I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation
doesn't actually break at
d Support Agency
P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
28681 | F 02 627 28898
W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jermayn Parker
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:46
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Our new gov
1024x768 would be my choice.
--
Cem Meric | http://www.kalkadoon.net/
Kalkadoon Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Offenstein
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:31 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] R
Our new gov site (still in development) is 1024 x 768 and so are a few
others which they used as examples...
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/06/2007 11:37:30 am >>>
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites)
as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.
Many si
I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as
it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience.
Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website
traffic.
If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether
you still need to c
40 matches
Mail list logo
