Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

If not, what do you use?
Thanks in advance

Infant Newbie

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Jun 30, 6:48 pm, "Infant Newbie" wrote:
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Infant Newbie wrote:

> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

Old hat? Yes, since sometime in the middle of the last decade.

You have no idea what the current size of my browser window is (it may
be 600px wide by 900px tall at this moment), nor is my monitor's
resolution important.

> If not, what do you use?

Google for: CSS flexible design

This is one of the early links:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/flexdesign.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Jun 30, 12:48 pm, "Infant Newbie" wrote:
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> If not, what do you use?
> Thanks in advance
>
> Infant Newbie

There never has been a standard. Now 800 x 600 is somewhat in the
middle of the range. Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
range. On the other extreme, some small devices such as cell phones
are set for much under 800 x 600. If you have an Opera browser, it can
be set to show how your page appears on very small screens. As others
have pointed out, you need to code your page so that at least text can
be easily read over a very wide range of settings. Exceptions might be
if you are writing pages for a network where everyone uses the same
hardware.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Jun 30, 4:51 pm, cwdjrxyz wrote:
> There never has been a standard. Now 800 x 600 is somewhat in the
> middle of the range. Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
> 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
> range. On the other extreme, some small devices such as cell phones
> are set for much under 800 x 600.

Does anybody happen to know what pixel width the new iPhone uses to
lay out pages? I took a look at one at an Apple store today, and it
seems to use a layout with more "virtual pixels" than the display
actually has, then lets you zoom in and out as well as rotating the
device to switch between "portrait" and "landscape" modes.

--
Dan

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article
<1183236700.730315.163270@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz wrote:

> Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
> 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
> range. On the other extreme,

What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
second of the two screenshots at:

http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:48:09 GMT Infant Newbie scribed:

> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

Sort of. Virtually all my site is thumbnail galleries so I use 800 x 600
as the minimum at which they will display esthetically as I wish. I pretty
much use 1280 x 1024 as the maximum for this. (I believe the overall
median is probably 1024 x 768.)

Note that a page must (and does) display correctly at all sizes sans
horizontal scrollbar within the limits of a single thumb. What is
sometimes overlooked are very large screens; I know some ppl. with 8092 x
???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article
,
Neredbojias wrote:

> I know some ppl. with 8092 x
> ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.

Yes, a "decent" page must. In respect to 8092px, is top left
decent or indecent, sensible or not sensible?

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Infant Newbie wrote:
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> If not, what do you use?
> Thanks in advance
>
> Infant Newbie
You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
window size needs to come into the argument.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:46:56 GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article
> ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> I know some ppl. with 8092 x
>> ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in
>> those.
>
> Yes, a "decent" page must. In respect to 8092px, is top left
> decent or indecent, sensible or not sensible?

There are 2 ways to look at it. Some large-area "venues" (yuk yuk) are
multiple-screen. In that case I'd say top left is preferable. However,
for a single-screen setup I think centering is better, particularly since
it's possible the content may be only 1 (inline) line. I usually default
to the latter because those people capable of affording large, multi-screen
displays could do with a little grief, anyway.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

"Chaddy2222" wrote in message
news:1183264929.265785.28460@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Infant Newbie wrote:
> > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
> >
> > If not, what do you use?
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Infant Newbie
> You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
> and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
> and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
> window size needs to come into the argument.
> --

Optimize Web pages for 1024x768, but use a liquid layout that stretches well
for any resolution, from 800x600 to 1280x1024.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Infant Newbie wrote:
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.

Dani

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Daniela Duerbeck wrote:
> Infant Newbie wrote:
>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.

My desktop is 1400 x 1050, but my Firefox window is about 1050 x 1000.
Opera's about the same. Konqueror is somewhat narrower. And all vary
from time to time.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article ,
Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Daniela Duerbeck wrote:
> > Infant Newbie wrote:
> >> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
> >
> > On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.
>
> My desktop is 1400 x 1050, but my Firefox window is about 1050 x 1000.
> Opera's about the same. Konqueror is somewhat narrower. And all vary
> from time to time.

My desktop is about 3800px wide and yet I still often find it
convenient to have a browser to be just 800px wide. What is the
rest of the screen estate doing? All sorts of things, sometimes a
whole 1024 of it is switched off to save the earth.

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Thanks All.
"Infant Newbie" wrote in message
news:f66589$prs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> If not, what do you use?
> Thanks in advance
>
> Infant Newbie
>

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

mr rudeforth wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" wrote in message
> news:1183264929.265785.28460@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Infant Newbie wrote:
> > > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
> > >
> > > If not, what do you use?
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Infant Newbie
> > You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
> > and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
> > and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
> > window size needs to come into the argument.
> > --
>
> Optimize Web pages for 1024x768, but use a liquid layout that stretches well
> for any resolution, from 800x600 to 1280x1024.
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html
Yep, I have read that.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Jul 1, 1:23 am, dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <1183236700.730315.163...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
> > Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
> > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
> > range. On the other extreme,
>
> What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
> too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
> reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
> quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
> not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
> each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
> Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
> second of the two screenshots at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp
>
> --
> dorayme

Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:

19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)

My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops, so as far as a web page
is concerned desktop size is irrelevant.

However... I build all my sites in Flash, and aim for full clarity at
800x600, but they expand to fill whatever space the browser makes
available.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Jul 2, 11:59 pm, SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:23 am, dorayme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <1183236700.730315.163...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > cwdjrxyz wrote:
> > > Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
> > > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
> > > range. On the other extreme,
>
> > What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
> > too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
> > reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
> > quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
> > not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
> > each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
> > Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
> > second of the two screenshots at:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp
>
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:
>
> 19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
> 30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
> 19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)
>
> My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops, so as far as a web page
> is concerned desktop size is irrelevant.
>
> However... I build all my sites in Flash, and aim for full clarity at
> 800x600, but they expand to fill whatever space the browser makes
> available.
I guess with useing flash for the entire site you would not have any
issue with content not looking identicle in all browsers.
It should also be noted that the new W3C web accessibility guidelines
2.0 (it's in draft format) don't require transcriptions of video and
stuff as much as the 1.0 guidelines did. Personally though I am not
sure of what guidelines i'll use when the 2.0 stuff comes out, becuase
they seam to have gone backwards with regards too CSS support, I would
have thaught the 2.0 guidelines would have been all for CSS. Although
for what it's werth they might as well be written in some other
language as no-one seams to understand them anyway.
Having said that I might have another more detailed read of them in
the next day or so as they did not really seam that bad when I went
over them a few weeks ago. But then I read Joe Clarks stuff on the
subject and it kind of changed my mind again.

--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:48:09 GMT Infant Newbie scribed:
>
>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> Sort of. Virtually all my site is thumbnail galleries so I use 800 x 600
> as the minimum at which they will display esthetically as I wish. I pretty
> much use 1280 x 1024 as the maximum for this. (I believe the overall
> median is probably 1024 x 768.)
>
> Note that a page must (and does) display correctly at all sizes sans
> horizontal scrollbar within the limits of a single thumb. What is
> sometimes overlooked are very large screens; I know some ppl. with 8092 x
> ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.
>


Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites, however.

Screen Resolutions
1 1024x768 50.90%
2 1280x1024 16.81%
3 800x600 8.93%
4 1280x800 8.20%
5 1152x864 3.99%
6 1440x900 2.77%
7 1680x1050 1.85%
8 1280x768 1.26%
9 1280x960 1.07%
10 1400x1050 1.00%


Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Animesh K wrote:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:48:09 GMT Infant Newbie scribed:
>>
>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>
>> Sort of. Virtually all my site is thumbnail galleries so I use 800 x 600
>> as the minimum at which they will display esthetically as I wish. I pretty
>> much use 1280 x 1024 as the maximum for this. (I believe the overall
>> median is probably 1024 x 768.)
>>
>> Note that a page must (and does) display correctly at all sizes sans
>> horizontal scrollbar within the limits of a single thumb. What is
>> sometimes overlooked are very large screens; I know some ppl. with 8092 x
>> ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.
>>
> Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
> claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
> resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites, however.
>
> Screen Resolutions
> 1 1024x768 50.90%
> 2 1280x1024 16.81%
> 3 800x600 8.93%
> 4 1280x800 8.20%
> 5 1152x864 3.99%
> 6 1440x900 2.77%
> 7 1680x1050 1.85%
> 8 1280x768 1.26%
> 9 1280x960 1.07%
> 10 1400x1050 1.00%
>
> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20

What is the size of these people's browser viewports?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:07:23 GMT Animesh K scribed:

> Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
> claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
> resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites,
> however.
>
> Screen Resolutions
> 1 1024x768 50.90%
> 2 1280x1024 16.81%
> 3 800x600 8.93%
> 4 1280x800 8.20%
> 5 1152x864 3.99%
> 6 1440x900 2.77%
> 7 1680x1050 1.85%
> 8 1280x768 1.26%
> 9 1280x960 1.07%
> 10 1400x1050 1.00%
>
>
> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20

That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually takes the
lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical flatscreen. I was a
long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the majority size was still
640x480 by far.

What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect ratio.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:07:23 GMT Animesh K scribed:
>
>> Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The
>> median claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by
>> 600 px resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of
>> websites, however.
>>
>> Screen Resolutions 1 1024x768 50.90% 2 1280x1024
>> 16.81% 3 800x600 8.93% 4 1280x800 8.20% 5
>> 1152x864 3.99% 6 1440x900 2.77% 7 1680x1050
>> 1.85% 8 1280x768 1.26% 9 1280x960 1.07% 10
>> 1400x1050 1.00%
>>
>>
>> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
>
> That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
> takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
> flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
> majority size was still 640x480 by far.
>
> What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
> ratio.

As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
those?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

"Infant Newbie" writes:

> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

Still? I never did.

> If not, what do you use?

Flexible markup that works at any resolution.

sherm--

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:34:28 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>>> Screen Resolutions 1 1024x768 50.90% 2 1280x1024
>>> 16.81% 3 800x600 8.93% 4 1280x800 8.20% 5
>>> 1152x864 3.99% 6 1440x900 2.77% 7 1680x1050
>>> 1.85% 8 1280x768 1.26% 9 1280x960 1.07% 10
>>> 1400x1050 1.00%
>>>
>>>
>>> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
>>
>> That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
>> takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
>> flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
>> majority size was still 640x480 by far.
>>
>> What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
>> ratio.
>
> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
> numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
> monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
> 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
> those?

Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next
monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)

I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go that
high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the screen
elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:34:28 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>>> Screen Resolutions 1 1024x768 50.90% 2 1280x1024
>>>> 16.81% 3 800x600 8.93% 4 1280x800 8.20% 5
>>>> 1152x864 3.99% 6 1440x900 2.77% 7 1680x1050
>>>> 1.85% 8 1280x768 1.26% 9 1280x960 1.07% 10
>>>> 1400x1050 1.00%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
>>>
>>> That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
>>> takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
>>> flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
>>> majority size was still 640x480 by far.
>>>
>>> What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
>>> ratio.
>>
>> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>> numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>> monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>> 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>> those?
>
> Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next

IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and 20"
monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the 21"
and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling when
reading a page), and am less interested in horizontal geography.

> monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)

I'm waiting for a good deal on a Samsung 204B. Might want to look at
this one yourself, if you haven't.

http://tinyurl.com/ypow9f

> I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go that
> high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the screen
> elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform.

I'll bet they were. :)

I'm using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19", which I don't think will do
1600x1200. My last Trinitron would, but at that (same) size for me the
elements were a little small. They should be fine with the two more
inches diagonal that moving to a 20" LCD from the 19" CRTs provide.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:34:28 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>>
>>>>> Screen Resolutions 1 1024x768 50.90% 2 1280x1024
>>>>> 16.81% 3 800x600 8.93% 4 1280x800 8.20% 5
>>>>> 1152x864 3.99% 6 1440x900 2.77% 7 1680x1050
>>>>> 1.85% 8 1280x768 1.26% 9 1280x960 1.07% 10
>>>>> 1400x1050 1.00%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
>>>>
>>>> That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
>>>> takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
>>>> flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
>>>> majority size was still 640x480 by far.
>>>>
>>>> What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
>>>> ratio.
>>>
>>> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>>> numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>>> monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>>> 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>>> those?
>>
>> Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next
>
> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and 20"

IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)

> monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the 21"
> and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling when

WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes. :)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:59:38 -0700, SpaceGirl
wrote:

>Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:
>
>19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
>30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
>19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)
>
>My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops,

Size queen 8-P

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:48:09 +0100, "Infant Newbie"
wrote:

>Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

No. I used to, in that I used to keep image sizes down to about 600 px
longest dimension. Now I use 800px longest instead.

As for text content, you should of course make it fluid.

200 px devices (phones etc) are increasingly important, but they'll
generally have their image sizes transcoded by the network beforehand.
Fluid design is still important for the text though.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:19:22 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>>> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the
>>> low numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my
>>> new monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves
>>> are 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is
>>> buying those?
>>
>> Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my
>> next
>
> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and
> 20" monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in
> the 21" and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less
> scrolling when reading a page), and am less interested in horizontal
> geography.

As long as it doesn't stretch vids and images up-and-down-wise. I've
seen flat screens that were about as faithful to intrinsic aspect ratios
as a husband is to an ex-wife.

>> monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)
>
> I'm waiting for a good deal on a Samsung 204B. Might want to look at
> this one yourself, if you haven't.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ypow9f

Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your sand
dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)

>> I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go
>> that high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the
>> screen elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform.
>
> I'll bet they were. :)
>
> I'm using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19", which I don't think
> will do 1600x1200. My last Trinitron would, but at that (same) size
> for me the elements were a little small. They should be fine with the
> two more inches diagonal that moving to a 20" LCD from the 19" CRTs
> provide.

It's amazing how often I hear that everything would be fine with just 2
more inches.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nosin'.

-Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:22:38 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and
>> 20"
>
> IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)
>
>> monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the
>> 21" and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling
>> when
>
> WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes.
> :)

Watch out, there was a news item in the Sydney Herald about people shark
hunting with a cheap and common drugstore balm. They just purchase some
Vicks Vapo Rub, separate the ingredients in a neighborhhod meth lab, seed
the ocean in a likely spot, and wait for the sharks to sit around the
camphor telling fish stories.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nosin'.

-Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:19:22 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>>> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the
>>>> low numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my
>>>> new monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves
>>>> are 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is
>>>> buying those?
>>>
>>> Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my
>>> next
>>
>> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and
>> 20" monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in
>> the 21" and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less
>> scrolling when reading a page), and am less interested in horizontal
>> geography.
>
> As long as it doesn't stretch vids and images up-and-down-wise. I've

Yeah, that would suck.

> seen flat screens that were about as faithful to intrinsic aspect ratios
> as a husband is to an ex-wife.

>>> monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)
>>
>> I'm waiting for a good deal on a Samsung 204B. Might want to look at
>> this one yourself, if you haven't.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ypow9f
>
> Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
> about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your sand
> dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)

It's been $350US for a long time. I'm waiting for the first price I see
under $299. I've seen them in stores, and haven't personally noticed
anything bad about the display, but perhaps I wasn't looking hard
enough. I'll look again before buying. I don't know if I'd ever use
the rotation feature, but I think it's cool. I dunno what my graphics
adapter thinks about it, though.

>>> I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go
>>> that high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the
>>> screen elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform.
>>
>> I'll bet they were. :)
>>
>> I'm using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19", which I don't think
>> will do 1600x1200. My last Trinitron would, but at that (same) size
>> for me the elements were a little small. They should be fine with the
>> two more inches diagonal that moving to a 20" LCD from the 19" CRTs
>> provide.
>
> It's amazing how often I hear that everything would be fine with just 2
> more inches.

:)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:22:38 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and
>>> 20"
>>
>> IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)
>>
>>> monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the
>>> 21" and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling
>>> when
>>
>> WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes.
>> :)
>
> Watch out, there was a news item in the Sydney Herald about people shark
> hunting with a cheap and common drugstore balm. They just purchase some
> Vicks Vapo Rub, separate the ingredients in a neighborhhod meth lab, seed
> the ocean in a likely spot, and wait for the sharks to sit around the
> camphor telling fish stories.

Yok! :) Thanks.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Infant Newbie wrote:
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> If not, what do you use?

screen resolution != desktop-size != browser size != viewport size
(PointedEars' Standard-Floskeln
[http://pointedears.de/psf/index.de#general])

Please be aware that 97% of all visitors will see your site with a
viewport-size of at least 740px, whereas only 50% of your visitors will
use a viewport size of >1020px...

the choice is up to you...

(http://aktuell.de.selfhtml.org/weblog/aufloesung-viewport)

cheers
bernhard


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:48:13 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>> Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
>> about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your
>> sand dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)
>
> It's been $350US for a long time. I'm waiting for the first price I
> see under $299. I've seen them in stores, and haven't personally
> noticed anything bad about the display, but perhaps I wasn't looking
> hard enough. I'll look again before buying. I don't know if I'd ever
> use the rotation feature, but I think it's cool. I dunno what my
> graphics adapter thinks about it, though.

What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than others. My
Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as well as the usual
brightness, contrast, and gamma. This is helpful because the adjustments
on the Sony really kinda suck.

I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go down
eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just a couple of years
ago they were double and more. It pays to wait.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Blinky the Shark wrote:
>As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>those?
I bought two :) One for my computer and one for my MythTV HTPC. I am
convinced that 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitors will replace 4:3
monitors because they will become the standard for television viewing
and will be much cheaper because of the huge market for them.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Sherm Pendley wrote:

>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>
>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
>Still? I never did.
>
>> If not, what do you use?
>
>Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
this?

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:48:13 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>> Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
>>> about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your
>>> sand dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)
>>
>> It's been $350US for a long time. I'm waiting for the first price I
>> see under $299. I've seen them in stores, and haven't personally
>> noticed anything bad about the display, but perhaps I wasn't looking
>> hard enough. I'll look again before buying. I don't know if I'd ever
>> use the rotation feature, but I think it's cool. I dunno what my
>> graphics adapter thinks about it, though.
>
> What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than others. My
> Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as well as the usual

An old GeForce2 MX400.

It'll do 1600x1200, which is my goal, but I don't think wide-screen
formats were around back when I got the adapter.

> brightness, contrast, and gamma. This is helpful because the adjustments
> on the Sony really kinda suck.
>
> I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go down
> eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just a couple of years
> ago they were double and more. It pays to wait.

I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300 clams.
:)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>>numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>>monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>>1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>>those?
> I bought two :) One for my computer and one for my MythTV HTPC. I am
> convinced that 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitors will replace 4:3
> monitors because they will become the standard for television viewing
> and will be much cheaper because of the huge market for them.

I agree.

I was a hold-out. I used to say, re "multimedia" computers, "No, I
haven't confused my TV and stereo, which are over there on the opposite
wall, with my computer, which is on the desk in front of me."

Then, after joining Netflix a year ago, I started watching movies on DVD
on my laptop (which has a wide-screen 15" display). By now, I've
watched a few here on my Linux desktop (19" 4:3).

I'm so ashamed. ;)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:43:25 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>> What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than others.
>> My Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as well as the
>> usual
>
> An old GeForce2 MX400.
>
> It'll do 1600x1200, which is my goal, but I don't think wide-screen
> formats were around back when I got the adapter.

Er, scratch what I said above. I have a GeForce 7300 LE which does the
color adjust. (-NVidia was *last* 'puter.) Apparently it's limited to
1280x1024, though, (unless the monitor has something to do with it??)

I'm just a po' farm boy tryin' to survive in this here city with his silo
intact.

>> I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go down
>> eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just a couple of
>> years ago they were double and more. It pays to wait.
>
> I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300 clams.
>:)

Ahh, don't be an octopussy! Clams don't grow on trees (but then trees
don't grow on clams, either.)

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:21 GMT David Segall scribed:

> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>
>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>
>>Still? I never did.
>>
>>> If not, what do you use?
>>
>>Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
> this?

Try my site:

http://www.neredbojias.com/

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:43:25 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>
>>> What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than
>>> others. My Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as
>>> well as the usual
>>
>> An old GeForce2 MX400.
>>
>> It'll do 1600x1200, which is my goal, but I don't think
>> wide-screen formats were around back when I got the adapter.
>
> Er, scratch what I said above. I have a GeForce 7300 LE which
> does the color adjust. (-NVidia was *last* 'puter.) Apparently
> it's limited to 1280x1024, though, (unless the monitor has
> something to do with it??)
>
> I'm just a po' farm boy tryin' to survive in this here city with
> his silo intact.
>
>>> I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go
>>> down eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just
>>> a couple of years ago they were double and more. It pays to
>>> wait.
>>
>> I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300
>> clams.
>>:)
>
> Ahh, don't be an octopussy! Clams don't grow on trees (but then
> trees don't grow on clams, either.)

Merging octopussy and trees:

http://tinyurl.com/222se


--
Blinky
Killfiling all posts from Google Groups
Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:

> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>
>> Still? I never did.
>>
>>> If not, what do you use?
>>
>> Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>
> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
> this?

You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.

http://www.freezeblock.com/
http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/

A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line length,
but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Per Blinky the Shark:
>http://tinyurl.com/222se

Somebody pretty smart/creative - with *waaay* to much time on
their hands?
--
PeteCresswell

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article
,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>
> http://www.freezeblock.com/
> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>

Very nice, B. Just one little thing I noticed, without looking at
your code, the block in which the top heading image is in, seems
to be em based for height. Not sure it needs to be as the img is
fixed and upping the text unnecessarily uses screen height in
this respect.

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

dorayme wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>
>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>
> Very nice, B.

Thanks.

> Just one little thing I noticed, without looking at your code, the
> block in which the top heading image is in, seems to be em based for
> height. Not sure it needs to be as the img is fixed and upping the
> text unnecessarily uses screen height in this respect.

Could be. I'll have a look at it after the holiday. Oh well, it's
only one number in one file. Changed now. Both sites, actually.

I do this one as well:
http://countryrode.com/

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:35:59 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

>>> I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300
>>> clams.
>>>:)
>>
>> Ahh, don't be an octopussy! Clams don't grow on trees (but then
>> trees don't grow on clams, either.)
>
> Merging octopussy and trees:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/222se

Now see what happens when you don't get enough sex?

The pages _are_ nicely-composed. Didn't look at the source but the guy
seems adept.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> "Infant Newbie" writes:
>>
>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>> Still? I never did.
>>
>>> If not, what do you use?
>> Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
> this?

here is an explanation to adaptive layouts... that's what is needed here:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/switchymclayout/

HTH
bernhard


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:21 GMT David Segall scribed:
>
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>
>>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>>
>>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>>
>>>Still? I never did.
>>>
>>>> If not, what do you use?
>>>
>>>Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>> this?
>
>Try my site:
>
>http://www.neredbojias.com/
It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen and I think the line length
on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my 1680x1050
monitor.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>
>>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>>
>>> Still? I never did.
>>>
>>>> If not, what do you use?
>>>
>>> Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>>
>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>> this?
>
>You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>
>http://www.freezeblock.com/
At 800x600 looks fine
except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4). At 1680x1050 I think the line
length of the first two lines is far too long although I like the way
you have used the illustrations and the boxed testimonials to limit
the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem to have given up on
so it looks like a fixed
width page except that the heading looks centered at 800x600 and right
justified at 1680x1050.
>http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
You were very brave to include a table
in your candidate
site. It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
maximimum width.
>
>A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line length,
>but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
how to achieve it.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> David Segall wrote:
>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>> this?
>>
>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>
>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>
> At 800x600 looks fine
> except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
> error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).

What is the error you see, and what told you of the error? Neither the
W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.

> At 1680x1050 I think the line length of the first two lines is far too
> long although I like the way you have used the illustrations and the
> boxed testimonials to limit the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem
> to have given up on so it
> looks like a fixed width page except that the heading looks centered
> at 800x600 and right justified at 1680x1050.

Do you really use your browser window maximized?

>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>
> You were very brave to include a table
> in your candidate
> site.

How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.

> It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
> the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
> maximimum width.

The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.

>> A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line
>> length, but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
>
> I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
> 320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post

I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
rather well.

> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
> how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
> how to achieve it.

I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:22:48 GMT David Segall scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:21 GMT David Segall scribed:
>>
>>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>>>
>>>>Still? I never did.
>>>>
>>>>> If not, what do you use?
>>>>
>>>>Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>> this?
>>
>>Try my site:
>>
>>http://www.neredbojias.com/
> It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
> sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen

Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
particular page?

> and I think the line length
> on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my 1680x1050
> monitor.

Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall writes:

> The post
> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
> how a web page should be designed

Pious? Spare me. Piety concerns religious belief - the belief that a
thing is true, when in reality it's not known for a fact whether it's
true or not.

The people making pious statements are the ones who claim to know all
about random Joe User visiting their site - what browser he's using,
whether he's disabled JavaScript, etc. They believe in something that
has not been proven as fact.

Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
irrational belief that I do know these things.

sherm--

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article ,
Sherm Pendley wrote:

> David Segall writes:
>
> > The post
> > that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
> > number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
> > how a web page should be designed
>

> Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
> pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
> my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
> irrational belief that I do know these things.
>
> sherm--

Everyone concerned with this question will get a rather different
feeling about it if they think of the ideas being ideals and the
implementations approximations. In other words, to take the ideal
of fluid design, in reality they are less than perfect in that it
is extremely hard to make a design show up as we might want for
all screen sizes or even no screen size. The idea is that the
author gets it right if he or she makes as decent a compromise
between the competing claims as possible. Those choosing em based
designs and em widths succeed well enough in this (beau)regard.
Those choosing pixel based designs and fixed widths too often
fail spectacularly.

(btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name, and it tuns
up in replies on my newsreader.)

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

dorayme writes:

> In article ,
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> sherm--
>
> (btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name

No it doesn't. "sherm--" is part of my postings, not part of my sig. My
sig begins with the correct "-- " delimiter.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article ,
Sherm Pendley wrote:

> dorayme writes:
>
> > In article ,
> > Sherm Pendley wrote:
> >
> >> sherm--
> >
> > (btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name
>
> No it doesn't. "sherm--" is part of my postings, not part of my sig. My
> sig begins with the correct "-- " delimiter.
>
> sherm--

Right. First time I noticed it! Is there some reason for this? I
mean, lets face it, I am not exactly the most modest being in the
universe yet provide for my name to auto disappear in replies.
Sure, it hurt like hell making the decision to do so, do you
think I like my name missing the rare opportunity to appear?

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

dorayme writes:

> In article ,
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> dorayme writes:
>>
>> > In article ,
>> > Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> >
>> >> sherm--
>> >
>> > (btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name
>>
>> No it doesn't. "sherm--" is part of my postings, not part of my sig. My
>> sig begins with the correct "-- " delimiter.
>>
>> sherm--
>
> Right. First time I noticed it! Is there some reason for this?

No, not really.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Neredbojias wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:22:48 GMT David Segall scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:21 GMT David Segall scribed:
>>>
>>>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Infant Newbie" writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Still? I never did.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, what do you use?
>>>>>
>>>>>Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>>> this?
>>>
>>>Try my site:
>>>
>>>http://www.neredbojias.com/
>> It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
>> sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen
>
>Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
>particular page?
I just tried it on your home page.
>
>> and I think the line length
>> on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my 1680x1050
>> monitor.
>
>Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?
http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html

I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> David Segall wrote:
>>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>>
>>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>>
>> At 800x600 looks fine
>> except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
>> error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).
>
>What is the error you see, and what told you of the error? Neither the
>W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.
>
>> At 1680x1050 I think the line length of the first two lines is far too
>> long although I like the way you have used the illustrations and the
>> boxed testimonials to limit the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem
>> to have given up on so it
>> looks like a fixed width page except that the heading looks centered
>> at 800x600 and right justified at 1680x1050.
>
>Do you really use your browser window maximized?
>
>>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>>
>> You were very brave to include a table
>> in your candidate
>> site.
>
>How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
>This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.
>
>> It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
>> the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
>> maximimum width.
>
>The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.
>
>>> A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line
>>> length, but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
>>
>> I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
>> 320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
>
>I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
>rather well.
>
>> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
>> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
>> how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
>> how to achieve it.
>
>I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> David Segall wrote:
>>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>>
>>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>>
>> At 800x600 looks fine
>> except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
>> error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).
>
>What is the error you see, and what told you of the error?
When the link spans more than one line the box breaks and the first
and second line overlap.
> Neither the
>W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.

>
>> At 1680x1050 I think the line length of the first two lines is far too
>> long although I like the way you have used the illustrations and the
>> boxed testimonials to limit the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem
>> to have given up on so it
>> looks like a fixed width page except that the heading looks centered
>> at 800x600 and right justified at 1680x1050.
>
>Do you really use your browser window maximized?
Usually. I'm not good at managing multiple windows on one screen and I
have a second small monitor if I want to keep some reference data
visible.
>
>>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>>
>> You were very brave to include a table
>> in your candidate
>> site.
>
>How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
>This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.
>
>> It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
>> the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
>> maximimum width.
>
>The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.
>
>>> A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line
>>> length, but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
>>
>> I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
>> 320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
>
>I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
>rather well.
>
>> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
>> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
>> how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
>> how to achieve it.
>
>I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
No. You were _not_ pious. Unlike the post I responded to you were
careful to specify "within reason" and I assumed that you do not think
that expecting a site to work on a mobile phone and a wide screen
monitor was within reason.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:22:44 GMT David Segall scribed:

>>>>http://www.neredbojias.com/
>>> It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
>>> sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen
>>
>>Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
>>particular page?
> I just tried it on your home page.

I've shrunken that page to under 300px in ie, ff, and opera, and seen no
particular problem. Sure, one of the graphics creates a horz scrollbar
and at a certain size the text is difficult to read because of the
largeness of the letters, but that's hardly an issue where I'm
accountable. Perhaps this "Palm Treo" doesn't handle html all that
correctly or attempts shrinkage, etc., with an inferior algorthm.

>>> and I think the line length
>>> on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my
>>> 1680x1050 monitor.
>>>
>>Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?
> http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html

Yes, I can see what you mean here, and I agree. It's probably too long
for even a 1024x monitor. Maybe I'll ditz with that anon.

> I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
> think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
> just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
> have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.

Your probably right, although non-complex text-and-graphics only, such as
a thumbnail page, might have a chance.

--
Neredbojias

A hearty, healthy,
Living body
Will vomit, spit,
And oft go potty.

- Burma Shave

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

About 4 % of the visitors of my website have 800x600. Thank God there are no
640x480 :-) The peak is mostly at 1280x1024 and 1024x768

It is my personal opinion that an application or website should fit in a
800x600 screen, maybe with a few scrollbars (test if your frames etc get
scrollbard on small screens, set the resolution to 800x600 and experience
yourself !!)

Ton


"Infant Newbie" wrote in message
news:f66589$prs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> If not, what do you use?
> Thanks in advance
>
> Infant Newbie
>

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

His PDA is "just" 640x480 !!! :-(( .... That is about the highest resolution
a PDA have these days !! Not very thankful... 320x240 or 240x240 is a usuall
PDA screensize...

On topic again : for some websites a special PDA version is a good idea....

Ton


"Daniela Duerbeck" wrote in message
news:5er2fbF3ablhhU2@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> Infant Newbie wrote:
>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>
> On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.
>
> Dani

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

In article ,
David Segall wrote:

> I
> think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
> just CSS and HTML is ridiculous.

Is this something that anyone has seriously claimed for fluid
designs? The idea is usually that things should be reasonably
kosher for 700 or 800 px to bigger.

--
dorayme

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>David Segall wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> David Segall wrote:
>>>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>>>
>>> At 800x600 looks fine
>>> except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
>>> error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).
>>
>>What is the error you see, and what told you of the error?

> When the link spans more than one line the box breaks and the first
> and second line overlap.

Ah. What you are seeing is the 1px border giving the _appearance_ of an
overlap. If I remove the border, the line wraps with the same amount of
top and bottom margin/padding as any other paragraph.

I just changed the border of the link paragraph from border: 1px to
border-bottom: 1px and if you look again, you'll see that there is no
issue with "wrapping" or "overwriting".

>> Do you really use your browser window maximized?
>
> Usually. I'm not good at managing multiple windows on one screen and
> I have a second small monitor if I want to keep some reference data
> visible.

Dual monitors, and one is 1680px with a maximized browser. This is a
rare circumstance, I would wager. Don't you keep your editor and your
browser(s) open side-by-side while working? I do, and my monitor is only
1152px wide. Sure, they overlap a bit.

I'd also say it would be a reasonable assumption that people who
actually do have a browser as wide as your screen are used to seeing
'long lines of text'.

>>> You were very brave to include a table
>>> in your
>>> candidate site.
>>
>> How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
>> This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.

No comment on this?

>>> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies
>>> a number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements
>>> about how a web page should be designed without providing any
>>> guidance on how to achieve it.
>>
>> I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
>
> No. You were _not_ pious. Unlike the post I responded to you were
> careful to specify "within reason" and I assumed that you do not
> think that expecting a site to work on a mobile phone and a wide
> screen monitor was within reason.

I do expect my site to work well enough on a phone to be _useful_.
Perhaps not "exactly correct", but still quite useful, and certainly
lots better than the majority of sites when viewed on a small mobile
device.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Sherm Pendley wrote:

>David Segall writes:
>
>> The post
>> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
>> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
>> how a web page should be designed
>
>Pious? Spare me. Piety concerns religious belief - the belief that a
>thing is true, when in reality it's not known for a fact whether it's
>true or not.
>
>The people making pious statements are the ones who claim to know all
>about random Joe User visiting their site - what browser he's using,
>whether he's disabled JavaScript, etc. They believe in something that
>has not been proven as fact.
>
>Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
>pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
>my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
>irrational belief that I do know these things.
It is "religious" because it substitutes one irrational belief with
another one. It is true that you cannot predict how your site will be
viewed. That does not make it possible to design a site with CSS and
HTML that is usable by a visitor using a mobile phone and one using a
wide screen monitor. I used the word pious because the advocates seem
to believe that "any resolution" is more virtuous than accepting a
doable range of window sizes.

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

David Segall wrote:
>
> It is true that you cannot predict how your site will be
> viewed. That does not make it possible to design a site with CSS and
> HTML that is usable by a visitor using a mobile phone and one using a
> wide screen monitor.

Actually, CSS @media rules make this very possible. There are some
broken mobile browsers that try to apply screen media rules to those
tiny displays, but otherwise you can make a site that is quite usable on
a mobile device.

Note that usable != optimized.

--
Berg

Re: Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Bergamot writes:

> David Segall wrote:
>>
>> It is true that you cannot predict how your site will be
>> viewed. That does not make it possible to design a site with CSS and
>> HTML that is usable by a visitor using a mobile phone and one using a
>> wide screen monitor.
>
> Actually, CSS @media rules make this very possible. There are some
> broken mobile browsers that try to apply screen media rules to those
> tiny displays, but otherwise you can make a site that is quite usable on
> a mobile device.
>
> Note that usable != optimized.

Nor does it mean identical. I think that's what gets a lot of deezyner
panties in a bunch when they see words like "flexible design will work in
any browser." They assume that "work" means "looks identical", when in
fact it means nothing of the sort - a working web site is one that any
user can read. Whether or not every user gets to see the pretty bells and
whistles is another matter entirely.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net