Screen Resolution - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Screen Resolution

Kris wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

the Statusbar, and Googlebar, don't take away any width on
my browsers...

Favoritesbar does, but it's sooo easy to turn it off when I
want to have a wider view.

Anyway, my experience is (purely based on my own behaviour
and that of my 'average-internet-user-friends'), that when
having a monitor that doesn't do more than 800x600 or even
1024x768, everybody uses all applications maximised. And no working. Up till last July, I was one of those
people, I didn't even have an option to make it 1024x768
pixels if I wanted to.
Now I choose to have my screen at 1280x1024, and rarely have
my browser full screen. But.. never smaller than 800x600.

I remember someone said it's nicer to look at fixed width
than to flexible. And I agree with that :-)
I think that has to do with two things: the lines to read
are never too long, and , not unimportant, a good designer
can make a nice 'picture' of the whole site, whereas with
flexible design, he has no way of knowing how people will
view it, and what the composition would look like on their
An exception for me, are those sites that are purely giving
information, that people want to read, regardless of how
ugly it looks, or how difficult it is to read.
Something like information about medication or diseases
springs to mind.
Who cares what that looks like. But homepages, designer's
pages, anything that people want to look good.. I'd say
fixed design isn't all that bad.


Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Re: Screen Resolution

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:09:07 +0100, Els
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nicer for the deezyner, perhaps.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

How do you know how large your visitor will have their text? If they
have it at 200%, the lines will be very short at 800px.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Welcome to the www.

Mark Parnell

Re: Screen Resolution

Els wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think the only ones who say that are the folks designing those pages.
 Users generally care far less about those things.  In most cases, they
don't go to web sites only to look at them.  The site has some use other
than just desktop wallpaper.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And I don't.  So why would you be right and not me?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But by imposing a pixel-width limitation, you are also imposing the
probability that the lines will be too short, especially when the
visitor uses a larger text size.  That is just as bad, maybe worse, for
readability.  I run across it all the time with multi-columned pages.  2
or 3 words per line in a long column is *very* tedious to read.  I curse
stoopid deezyners every time I come across a site like that.

If you are going to insist on a fixed width, at least make it in ems so
it adjusts with the text size.  But that will undoubtedly cause
horizontal scrolling for some portion of your visitors, which sucks, too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You seem to miss the fact that a good designer understands the medium,
and works with its strengths.  Adaptability to the browsing environment
is the web's greatest strength, IMO.  Trying to force a fixed design
goes against its very nature.  That doesn't seem like good design for
this particular medium.

You also fail to realize that, unless it's all done in graphics or
Flash, the designer has no way of knowing how people will view it even
if they do try to fix the design.  The visitor has all the control,
whether or not they utilize any of that control isn't relevant.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's funny, I find fixed designs to be the most difficult to read.
Flexible designs are inherently more usable *because* of their
adaptability, not in spite of it.

To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash).  Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Re: Screen Resolution

 Dave wrote:

 > Hi Guys,

 > I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my
 > screen resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on
 > 1024x768. My question really is, will I have to drop the settings below
 > that as other people have smaller monitors therefore their screen
 > resolutions will be smaller.

 > Is their a minimum resolution to use, or will the 1024x768 be ok.

 > Many many thanks guys.

 > Keep up the excellent work!

 > Dave

Resolution is not dependendant on the size of the monitor.
a 5 inch screen can be 1024x768 just the same.
What changes is the dimension of the pixel.
Learn how to use "margin" in designing with CSS.
Margin:auto will "float" the layout in accordance with resolution and
dimensions of the window.
Just design the site so that the contents can "float".

Re: Screen Resolution

Richard wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What on earth are you talking about this time? The float property makes
an element float, not margin. margin:auto will center a block-level
element, but that doesn't have anything to do with floating.

Re: Screen Resolution

Quoted text here. Click to load it
It all depends on whether your producing your pages with a fixed or
fluid design.

With a fluid design (preferred) the contents will move around to fill up
the available space.

With a fixed design -- make sure it looks good at 800x600 in MSIE (and
make sure that the text can be re-sized).



Re: Screen Resolution

Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why?? Do yourself a favor and bump that up to 1280x1024 or 1600x1200

Site Timeline