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 ******************************************************
