On 03/03/2009 09:42, D Tucny wrote: > 2009/3/3 Tom Hughes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > D Tucny wrote: > > > I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and > applications these days seem to be going with all the options at > the top/bottom and a full width content section, while at the > same time most 4:3 screens are being replaced with 16:10 screens... > > > Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless > you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think > everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... > > > I guess that makes me a weird web user for always having browsers full > screen... Or at least, someone without enough screen space to > comfortably do otherwise :(...
I've been working on a website recently where the key component is a large picture which they need to see as much of as possible (not dissimilar in what most people would want from a map I guess). I've found my users fall into two distinct camps 1. "I've got a big screen, why can't I see more of the picture to make use of it". These people have 1400 pixels or more, some over 2000. 2. "It goes off the edge, I have to keep scrolling". A lot of people are still working on screens 1024 pixels wide, which means you're down to the mid 900s once you take all the borders, scroll bars and things into account. Of course, I've changed things to scale within reason so I can keep both happy, but I was surprised quite how many people are still working on tiny screens (and not just because they're on net books - these are ordinary desktop computers; in once case the screen is huge but run at extremely low res because of the user's poor eyesight). David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
