Hello,
I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
have 1280x800px.
What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
somewhere between 920px and 960px.
Could someone advice me on this?
A side note:
Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
will have 1280x800px or higher.
Thanks,
Miguel
shapper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
> have 1280x800px.
>
> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>
> Could someone advice me on this?
>
> A side note:
> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
> will have 1280x800px or higher.
Assuming you're right and I visit your site with a screen res of 1280 x
960 (which I won't, mine is 1280 x 1024), what size do you think my
browser window will be? And how will you know?
Even if my browser is maximized I use SeaMonkey with the sidebar
showing; at various widths depending on my mood. Which changes during
browsing sessions. How will you know?
And sometimes I have my browser less-than-maximized in a variety of
possible sizes. What then? How will you know?
I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
pixel-specific sized site.
I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
Let the games begin ...
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
If you can survive death, you can probably survive anything.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:27:09 -0400, Ed Mullen
>shapper wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
>> have 1280x800px.
>>
>> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
>> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>>
>> Could someone advice me on this?
>>
>> A side note:
>> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
>> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
>> will have 1280x800px or higher.
>
>Assuming you're right and I visit your site with a screen res of 1280 x
>960 (which I won't, mine is 1280 x 1024), what size do you think my
>browser window will be? And how will you know?
>
>Even if my browser is maximized I use SeaMonkey with the sidebar
>showing; at various widths depending on my mood. Which changes during
>browsing sessions. How will you know?
Awstats will show me what browser settings are. Broken down by the
various sizes.
>
>And sometimes I have my browser less-than-maximized in a variety of
>possible sizes. What then? How will you know?
same as above
>
>I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
>pixel-specific sized site.
>
>I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
>different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
>
>Let the games begin ...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
>have 1280x800px.
>
>What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
>somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>
>Could someone advice me on this?
>
>A side note:
>Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
>the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
>will have 1280x800px or higher.
>
>Thanks,
>Miguel
Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead.
So if you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.
In article
richard
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper
> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
> >have 1280x800px.
> >
> >What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> >somewhere between 920px and 960px.
> >
> >Could someone advice me on this?
> >
> >A side note:
> >Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
> >the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
> >will have 1280x800px or higher.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Miguel
>
>
>
> Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead.
> So if you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.
It is not fine at all. It may not be the end of the world, but it is not
a good practice and that is that. 800px wide browsers are nowhere near
dead, they are alive and well on many screens no matter how big.
--
dorayme
Ed Mullen wrote:
> I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
> pixel-specific sized site.
>
> I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
> different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
>
> Let the games begin ...
Some really big companies are doing this and are certainly
paying the designers a lot of money for their bandwidth
hogging Flash based sites.
My question to the owners is "Why do you think this is good?"
I haven't gotten around to getting broadband yet, but the day
is almost here when I am going to have to in order to download
most sites in a reasonable time. It is obvious that very few
site designers are paying attention to how many bytes are on
a given page.
richard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:27:09 -0400, Ed Mullen
>
>> shapper wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
>>> have 1280x800px.
>>>
>>> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
>>> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>>>
>>> Could someone advice me on this?
>>>
>>> A side note:
>>> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
>>> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
>>> will have 1280x800px or higher.
>> Assuming you're right and I visit your site with a screen res of 1280 x
>> 960 (which I won't, mine is 1280 x 1024), what size do you think my
>> browser window will be? And how will you know?
>>
>> Even if my browser is maximized I use SeaMonkey with the sidebar
>> showing; at various widths depending on my mood. Which changes during
>> browsing sessions. How will you know?
>
> Awstats will show me what browser settings are. Broken down by the
> various sizes.
>
>> And sometimes I have my browser less-than-maximized in a variety of
>> possible sizes. What then? How will you know?
>
> same as above
>
>> I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
>> pixel-specific sized site.
>>
>> I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
>> different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
>>
>> Let the games begin ...
But, as I said, what if I change any of those parameters during my
browsing session? How are you going to dynamically going to adapt to that?
No, sorry. I think your approach is doomed to failure.
Write a site that allows the user to see your content in the way that
the user finds most useful. If you try to force the user into some font
size or pixel size it will only make you fail.
By the way. Do you know what my browser minimum font size is?
Do you know what over-rides I have in my browser custom style sheet?
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Fear has its use but cowardice has none. - Mohandas Gandhi
On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, shapper
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
> have 1280x800px.
>
> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>
> Could someone advice me on this?
>
> A side note:
> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
> will have 1280x800px or higher.
It often is possible to design a web page so that it views the way
intended on most screen widths. People with newer PCs may have screen
widths well over 1000 px. Those with some portable and hand held
devices may have screen widths of 245 px or less. Do not design for a
certain screen size unless you must in certain situations.
As an example, view
http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/section3b.php#l9 on any screen
size from about 245 px to well over 1000 px. Notice how the screen is
filled with about the same percentage of margin on both the left and
right. If you have an Opera browser, just press "Shift" and "F11"
together. This will bring up a very small screen width of about 245
px, but the page still views properly. Most other browers will allow
selection of at least 2 or 3 screen widths, but usually not as low as
245 px.
The next question is how is this done. The answer is in the CSS style,
an external style sheet for the example given. View the external
stylesheet at http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/style.css . The
only reason the style sheet is external is to avoid duplication, since
the same style is used on several pages. Look at the style sheet
specification for body. Note that body contains left and right margins
specified in percentages of width rather than specific numerical
units. This is the secret of why the page views properly on an extreme
range of widths.
Disregard the xhtml Doctype used. It should be used only by those who
have associated the proper mime type for true xhtml on the server;
otherwise the xhtml page just gets served as html despite the xhtml
notation. Also some tricks must be used for browsers that can not
handle true xhtml served properly, such as all IE browsers. So write
the page in html 4.01 strict unless you are doing all of the xhtml
related things mentioned.
shapper wrote:
> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
> have 1280x800px.
Are all these visitors in your office, and you know for a fact that they
all have maximized browser windows on the office-standard LCD screen?
> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>
> Could someone advice me on this?
It's a simple answer:
http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=flex
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
"cwdjrxyz"
news:9b8eb4e6-b867-4ae8-8f06-cda9800cd758@y21g2000hsf.google groups.com...
> On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, shapper
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
>> have 1280x800px.
>>
>> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
>> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>>
>> Could someone advice me on this?
>>
>> A side note:
>> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
>> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
>> will have 1280x800px or higher.
>
>
> It often is possible to design a web page so that it views the way
> intended on most screen widths. People with newer PCs may have screen
> widths well over 1000 px. Those with some portable and hand held
> devices may have screen widths of 245 px or less. Do not design for a
> certain screen size unless you must in certain situations.
>
> As an example, view
> http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/section3b.php#l9 on any screen
> size from about 245 px to well over 1000 px. Notice how the screen is
Wow. How did you make such a complex and beautiful design work so well at
various screen widths?
+mrcakey
"Mark Jones"
news:7tSdndP3B7Lb-ZDVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
>> pixel-specific sized site.
>>
>> I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
>> different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
>>
>> Let the games begin ...
>
> Some really big companies are doing this and are certainly
> paying the designers a lot of money for their bandwidth
> hogging Flash based sites.
>
> My question to the owners is "Why do you think this is good?"
> I haven't gotten around to getting broadband yet, but the day
> is almost here when I am going to have to in order to download
> most sites in a reasonable time. It is obvious that very few
> site designers are paying attention to how many bytes are on
> a given page.
Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to be on
broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where it's
uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. Here in the UK it's as
cheap, if not cheaper to get broadband than dial-up which always makes me
wonder what the 15% or so that are still on dial-up are doing.
Something I really tend to forget is to keep my page sizes down properly.
Not an issue so far because all the sites I've done are of local appeal, but
if I want to do something more international I probably need a rethink.
+mrcakey
In article
wrote:
> Something I really tend to forget is to keep my page sizes down properly.
Have you had any experience on dial-up making websites? There are
lessons hard to forget.
--
dorayme
richard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper
> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will have
>>1280x800px.
>>
>>What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
>>somewhere between 920px and 960px.
>>
>>Could someone advice me on this?
>>
>>A side note:
>>Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and the
>>knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people will
>>have 1280x800px or higher.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Miguel
>
>
>
> Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead. So if
> you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.
I have a 1920 x 1200 monitor.
But I run my browsers in half that: 960 x 1200.
What will your stats say tell you about that that?
Lots of people are aware of things other than "Minimized" and "Maximized".
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
On 22 Apr 2008, "mrcakey"
>> My question to the owners is "Why do you think this is good?"
>> I haven't gotten around to getting broadband yet, but the day
>> is almost here when I am going to have to in order to download
>> most sites in a reasonable time. It is obvious that very few
>> site designers are paying attention to how many bytes are on
>> a given page.
>
> Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to
> be on broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where
> it's uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. Here in the UK
> it's as cheap, if not cheaper to get broadband than dial-up which
> always makes me wonder what the 15% or so that are still on dial-up
> are doing.
I'd like to know exactly how cheap it is in the UK. Perhaps the price of
your dial-up is simply inflated out of proportion...
Here in The States, cable broadband (as best as I can tell) seems to be
about $45/mo for the medium-high (~4meg+) speed. 6-8 meg speeds are
sometimes available for around 30% more.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
"Neredbojias"
message news:Xns9A88BF0DAE27neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236...
> On 22 Apr 2008, "mrcakey"
>
>
> Here in The States, cable broadband (as best as I can tell) seems to be
> about $45/mo for the medium-high (~4meg+) speed. 6-8 meg speeds are
> sometimes available for around 30% more.
>
> --
> Neredbojias
> http://www.neredbojias.com/
> Great sights and sound
In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things better
pricewise in the yUK, though it's partly a result of several large media
companies offering "free" broadband as part of larger television or phone
packages which in turn has meant customers' expectations of what they should
be paying are lower. If only we could translate that into cars, software,
hardware, houses, food etc...
http://www.uswitch.com/Broadband/Index.aspx?ref=&BestSeller= 2
+mrcakey
mrcakey wrote:
> In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things better
> pricewise in the yUK
I've been trying to figure out if that was a typo. I can't. :)
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
mrcakey wrote:
>> Here in The States, cable broadband (as best as I can tell) seems to be
>> about $45/mo for the medium-high (~4meg+) speed. 6-8 meg speeds are
>> sometimes available for around 30% more.
>>
> In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things better
> pricewise in the yUK, though it's partly a result of several large media
> companies offering "free" broadband as part of larger television or phone
> packages
Indeed. My broadband is supplied by Sky, and I pay £10 a month for an
16Mbit uncapped service. That's just under $20US by today's exchange
rates. That said, it's ADSL, so I don't get close to what I'm paying for
in terms of speed, but for me it's the "uncapped" bit that won me over,
as the next product down (8Mbit for £5pm, I think it was) had a monthly cap.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
On 22 Apr, 08:24, "mrcakey"
> "cwdjrxyz"
> > As an example, view
> >http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/section3b.php#l9on any screen
> > size from about 245 px to well over 1000 px. Notice how the screen is
>
>
>
> Wow. How did you make such a complex and beautiful design work so well at
> various screen widths?
You've got invalid markup - the
On 22 Apr, 02:15, shapper
> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
max-width: 52em; for the "content" column. This avoids text lines that
are unreadably long. Don't worry if IE ignores it, it's not crucial.
width in pixels _POSSIBLY_ if your site is basically an image gallery
and it will break badly otherwise.
Apart from that, don't mess with fixing rigid widths. You either can't
or you shouldn't. Users will show up with browser windows of all sizes
and shapes, you just have to cope with what they bring you. Look up
"fluid design".
Also 800px widths are increasingly common recently, as mobiles and set-
top devices become more popular.
mrcakey wrote:
> Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to
> be on broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where
> it's uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. ...
There was a stat published late last year (no, I don't remember the
link) that said U.S. dialup usage was still at least 40% of internet
users. One of the techs in my ISP's help groups said just recently he
believes it is closer to half.
The U.S. is still quite a rural country. I am in an 'almost' rural area,
have 10Mbps cable (last house on the line), but no DSL available.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
mrcakey wrote:
> Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to be on
> broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where it's
> uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. Here in the UK it's as
> cheap, if not cheaper to get broadband than dial-up which always makes me
> wonder what the 15% or so that are still on dial-up are doing.
Don't have to be in the wide expanses of prairies. Many places in the US
like here in the mid-Atlantic US where there is no broadband option
except satellite, which at least here has proven to be both pricey and
unreliable. It is true I guess that the US is indeed the richest
third-world country on the planet in many ways....
> Something I really tend to forget is to keep my page sizes down properly.
> Not an issue so far because all the sites I've done are of local appeal, but
> if I want to do something more international I probably need a rethink.
Can be very frustrating to want to see a site to only to be greeted only
with a slowly ticking loading indicator. BTW, this ones for Travis,
another pet peeve about Flash, I love tabbed browsers and I hate the
inability with damn Flash navigation the inability to open a link in
another tab. Just as annoying being set at 800px wide!!!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article
says...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper
> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
> >have 1280x800px.
> >
> >What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
> >somewhere between 920px and 960px.
> >
> >Could someone advice me on this?
> >
> >A side note:
> >Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
> >the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
> >will have 1280x800px or higher.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Miguel
>
>
>
> Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead.
> So if you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.
>
>
Don't assume anything about screen sizes - my wife uses a 19" monitor
set at 800 x 600 at work. I hate it, but she can see everything without
using her glasses (vanity...).
My awstats shows that 11% of my visitors utilize 800 x 600 resolution,
I'm not going to alienate 1 out of every 10 visiors.
In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
SAZ wrote:
>
> In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
--
Berg
In article <6769c3F2na540U2@mid.individual.net>, bergamot@visi.com
says...
> SAZ wrote:
> >
> > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
>
> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
>
>
Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
600.
On 22 Apr 2008, "mrcakey"
> "Neredbojias"
>> Here in The States, cable broadband (as best as I can tell) seems to
>> be about $45/mo for the medium-high (~4meg+) speed. 6-8 meg speeds
>> are sometimes available for around 30% more.
>>
>> --
>> Neredbojias
>> http://www.neredbojias.com/
>> Great sights and sound
>
> In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things
> better pricewise in the yUK, though it's partly a result of several
> large media companies offering "free" broadband as part of larger
> television or phone packages which in turn has meant customers'
> expectations of what they should be paying are lower. If only we
> could translate that into cars, software, hardware, houses, food
> etc...
>
> http://www.uswitch.com/Broadband/Index.aspx?ref=&BestSeller= 2
Yep, certainly looks cheaper by a considerable margin. Almost makes one
think that the US companies are rippin' people off. But, no, that couldn't
be it - not here in the good ol' altruistic USA...
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ
wrote:
>In article <6769c3F2na540U2@mid.individual.net>, bergamot@visi.com
>says...
>> SAZ wrote:
>> >
>> > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
>>
>> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
>> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
>>
>>
>Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
>600.
So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
conceivable screen size?
Or write for the smallest setting alone?
Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
of your visitors use. You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
richard wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ
> wrote:
>
>> In article <6769c3F2na540U2@mid.individual.net>, bergamot@visi.com
>> says...
>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>> In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
>>> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
>>> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
>> 600.
>
>
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
Basically, yes. Note also you won't know what font or font size will be
used in your site either. You may make *suggestions*, but ultimately the
user has the final word. It not that difficult as you make think, but
you do approach your design differently. Unfortunately noobies couple
with the WYSIWYG crutch pixel-box themselves in.
> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
> Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
> of your visitors use.
Therein is the rub. You have no idea what the majority of your visitors
viewport size it? It is not static as your your incorrectly describe as
"page" because it is not paper. You may get my monitor's resolution (IF
I allow you) but that may not be the viewport size at which I am view
your site. In fact it will not be... Also you may your "box" X pixels
wide and a up my font size and guess what happens to your layout!
> You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
> 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
> and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
>
Keep your day job. Trucking is a perfect fit.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article
says...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6769c3F2na540U2@mid.individual.net>, bergamot@visi.com
> >says...
> >> SAZ wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
> >>
> >> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
> >> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
> >600.
>
>
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
> Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
> of your visitors use. You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
> 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
> and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
>
What's your problem? Still using fixed width tables?
Why would you have to write a page for every conceivable size? As long
as you code correctly, your design should automatically fit any
resolution. Why would you alienate 10% of your potential
clients/customers that are using 800 x 600 by making them scroll side to
side to view your site? It shows a complete lack of business sense on
your part.
richard wrote:
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every conceivable
> screen size?
> Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page size
> in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You sure as
> hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv
> users who have no horizontal scroll bar?
For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
On 22 Apr 2008, richard
>>> > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
>>> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
>>>
>>>
>>Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
>>600.
>
>
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
Yep, that's it. However, that only has to be _one_ page if you know what
you're doing.
On my site, the kicker is images - some of which can be 400px wide. Other
than that, though, (most) pages flow to any size.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
In article
richard
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
Have you been around here for long?
--
dorayme
In article
no.spam@box.invalid says...
> richard wrote:
>
> > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every conceivable
> > screen size?
> > Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page size
> > in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You sure as
> > hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv
> > users who have no horizontal scroll bar?
>
> For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
>
>
>
>
WebTV user stats across all my sites - non-existant.
SAZ wrote:
> In article
> no.spam@box.invalid says...
>> richard wrote:
>>
>> > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
>> > conceivable screen size?
>> > Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page
>> > size in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You
>> > sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what
>> > aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll bar?
>>
>> For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
>>
>>
>>
> WebTV user stats across all my sites - non-existant.
Oh and two. They're goin' down. :)
For some relevant fun, check my headers...
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> richard
>
>> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
>> conceivable screen size?
>> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
>
> Have you been around here for long?
Yes he has, but he never pays attention to what else goes on. He is,
after all, RtS!
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
>> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every conceivable
>> screen size?
>> Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page size
>> in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You sure as
>> hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv
>> users who have no horizontal scroll bar?
>
> For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
>
>
>
Same here, but unfortunately MS keeps a Rasputin-spell on them so there
are still WebTV users other there. AOL as a similar spell
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
richard wrote:
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
> Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
> of your visitors use. You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
> 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
> and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
Open your site in Firefox and then press the "ctrl +" keys to
increase your font size and the "ctrl -" keys to decrease your
font sizes. The ability to change font sizes at any moment is
why you need to learn how to build using a fluid design that
can reflow as font sizes vary.
Right now I have Firefox set using Verdana size 18. I can very
easily change my default font size and currently it is a bit
larger than normal. I am running at 1280x1024 on my 20 inch
LCD monitor, but this has no correlation to what my browser
size might be set to.
richard wrote:
> Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
> of your visitors use.
That's right! The overwhelming majority of my visitors use browser
windows with sizes of ..
Um ..
Just about anything they care to use! And I don't care either!
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> SAZ wrote:
>
>> In article
>> no.spam@box.invalid says...
>>> richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
>>>> conceivable screen size?
>>>> Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page
>>>> size in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You
>>>> sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what
>>>> aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll bar?
>>> For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> WebTV user stats across all my sites - non-existant.
>
> Oh and two. They're goin' down. :)
>
> For some relevant fun, check my headers...
You are very naughty.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
richard wrote:
>
> Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> bar?
Besides what Blinky said, webtv doesn't need a horizontal scrollbar. It
reformats or shrinks the content to fit in the available space.
> Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> PPC's........yeah right.
Here's a hint for ya: if you don't set explicit widths, the page will
adjust itself to the available space. Or use % widths instead of other
inflexible methods.
> Us little guys who do all the work and design
> and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
Gee, it ain't rocket surgery. This stuff has been around for eons -
where have you been all this time?
--
Berg
Bergamot wrote:
> Gee, it ain't rocket surgery.
Or brain science ;-)
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
richard wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ
> wrote:
>
>> In article <6769c3F2na540U2@mid.individual.net>, bergamot@visi.com
>> says...
>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>> In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
>>> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
>>> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
>> 600.
>
>
> So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
> conceivable screen size?
> Or write for the smallest setting alone?
> Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
> of your visitors use.
>
> You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
> 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
> and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
>
This is the kind of thing people wrote ten years ago when the Web was
new to most of its users and screens had been mostly 15" and 800 x 600
ever since Windows came along and there were few plug-in projectors and
no handheld-based browsers and people never really thought about this
not being a permanent situation. They also designed websites exclusively
for Netscape because first there wasn't an IE, and then there was but it
was less popular and was *never* going to come close to Netscape in
popularity. And even later, people designed exclusively for IE because
everyone knew that Netscape was being abandoned in droves and that no
one new would *ever* pose a serious challenge to Microsoft in the
browser department. But then Firefox came along, and ....
By now it should have dawned on everyone designing any kind of computer
interface that "what the majority of your visitors use" is not some
inert and eternal set of characteristics, and unless you want to be
redesigning all your interfaces, or else watching your layouts break or
become unreadable, every two years as resolutions get higher and people
are using both larger and smaller screens and browsers change features
and wax and wane in popularity, you really ought to do yourself a big,
fat favor and design your sites following standards as much as possible
and using a flexible layout.
On Apr 23, 1:51 pm, Bergamot
> richard wrote:
>
> > Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
> > bar?
>
> Besides what Blinky said, webtv doesn't need a horizontal scrollbar. It
> reformats or shrinks the content to fit in the available space.
The thing to remember is that any computer or set top box, such as
WebTV that uses a standard(not HD) TV as a monitor will make the size
of fonts often used on web pages unreadable. If you have a standard TV
video output on your PC, just connect it to your TV and you will soon
see what I mean. This output works well for movies, but not web page
text.Thus WebTV and other devices that use a standard TV must do
something to make the text readable. They convert text to a large
enough font size to be readable, even if a font sized in fixed pixels
is used. The page may then look a bit strange, but it at least can be
read. The other thing is that the width is around 540 px (a border
mask takes up a little of the screen size) on WebTV using a TV
monitor. Thus even a page designed for 800 px width will be cut off on
the right without scrolling, and WebTV/MSNTV does not scroll to the
left or right. You only have to use percentages, or something else
that does not specify a fixed width, to avoid this problem, just as
use of percentages allows the page to be viewed on a wide range of
screen widths on PCs. In general, if you use simple html for the page,
it will then view properly on WebTV/MSNTV and many small portable
devices that have a much smaller screen width than used on modern PCs.
If you decide to use JavaScript, then WebTV/MSNTV, has some very
strange bugs, and these have varied for different revisions. If any
JavaScript on a page is important to understanding the page, you had
best view the page on a WebTV simulator(viewer) that can be downloaded
from Microsoft. Of course many in this group will tell you not to use
JS for things important to understanding or navigation of the page in
the first place, because some PC users turn off script, etc.
WebTV/MSNTV has also had some CSS bugs in various revisions, and it
does not support some of the more recent and fancy CSS. If you keep
your CSS fairly basic, there usually is no problem. These set top
boxes usually are a few revisions behind in flash, media players, etc,
so if you use media that requires features available in only the most
recent versions of flash, for example, the flash may not work properly
or at all on the set top box.
So far as I know WebTV/MSNTV has been used mainly in the US and
Canada. The Canadian usage may have been discontinued. Also a version
of WebTV was built into some early small dish satellite DBS TV
receivers sold in the US. I believe this was discontinued several
years ago, and I am not sure if any of these old recievers are still
in operation and still allow connection to WebTV.
>
> > Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
> > PPC's........yeah right.
>
> Here's a hint for ya: if you don't set explicit widths, the page will
> adjust itself to the available space. Or use % widths instead of other
> inflexible methods.