> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > As regards size, I tend to go for the 800 x 600, but again it's
> > important to bear in mind that there's still plenty of "small fish" out
> > there.
>
> I find I tend to design in two columns, one about 550 pixels wide and
> the other 250. In the wide left column all essential information is
> presented, the right column contains 'additional goodies'. This way,
> the design is optimized for 800x600 (which I'm assuming is the
> resolution most people use) while those with less resolution still get
> major bang for the buck.
>
I'm curious where you get this generalization -- that 800x600 is the rez "most" people
use.
GVU stats don't back it up.
WebTV *certainly* doesn't back it up. Neither does the rez on hand-helds.
There are lots of 640x480 monitors out there -- and *if* your stuff is good enough for
folks to want to print offline, they're going to find truncated right-hand margins at
anything wider than 590.
Addendum: I don't think of having to scroll as "getting more bang for my buck." I
think of it as a PITA. I'd much prefer your site design with navigation on the RHS.
Finally, even if my monitor is set at 800 or greater width rez -- I do NOT allow my
browser to take over 100% of my screen real estate. As the rez gets "higher" -- the
type size gets "smaller" -- meaning line lengths should *shorten* not *lengthen* for
readability.
Kathy
Kathy
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
