Resolution change Web Page Contents Settings

[kchayka]

Ignorant.

We'll see

AlienWare.com's target audiance is younger people. Their main focus is on
gaming and high performance machines for graphic artists.

Unlike Dell or HP, they need a site with a decent wow factor for marketing
purposes. That site is primarily a big advertisement built to sell a product to
a very specific group of individuals.

I'll buy that they have a particular target market and don't have to
please a more general audience. Nothing wrong with that.

The resolution issue isn't a problem for a site like that since serious gamers
and graphics people are almost certainly accessing the site from a high res
monitor.

I find that a very curious statement, since I also use a high
resolution, yet apparently don't see what other so-called high res users
do. The text in the navbar images is microscopic and pretty much
unreadable, for one thing.

BTW, I say "so-called high res" because the number of pixels on screen
is only one factor to consider. Or are you saying "resolution" when you
really mean window size?

They know their target audiance, and they designed accordingly.

Maybe, to some extent.

It should also be mentioned that a high end design like that

Is it considered high end because the home page is over 300KB counting
all the graphics and JS (with a little VBScript thrown in)? BTW, that
VBScript must mean the site is designed just for IE users, too, eh? So
more specifically, it's for IE users on broadband, which is only a
subset of the actual target market.

will net the designer thousands of dollars.

I'm not really interested in what the designer got out of it, but what
the visitor gets out of it. The site is for the user's benefit, after all.

So I wouldn't be so quick to call it "bloody awful" if I were you.

To each his own. I guess I'm just bored with that
gradient/glassy/roundy corner look graphic designers seem to like so
much. That kind of "wow factor" (as you put it) got old, except maybe
to other graphic designers. So some portion of the target audience may
be impressed to some degree, but I can't say what percent of the total
target market that is.

Serious gamers can be a fairly discriminating lot, though, and not so
easily taken in just by pretty colors and flashing lights. I know - I
live in a gaming family. BTW, I showed this site to the teenage gamer
in the family and the response was "it's typical, nothing special". So,
"bloody awful" may have been a tad exagerated, but "wow" most certainly
is, too.

 

[altamir]

It's not a great example of flexible design in the first place.

I think it should me more flexible than it's now. It's often cited in this
NG.

I get a horizontal scrollbar at anything less than 600px wide. But that
doesn't mean what it has to say is any less correct.

I often see examples of flexible design, which fall under lower resolutioms
(about <600px) - some elements are overlaping others, which makes the
information unreadable. All you get using fixed design is horizontal
scrollbar, but the content is still readable.

So you have your browser window too wide. Fix it. It isn't the site's
fault. I find it to be about right at fullscreen 1024x768. If it was
too wide, I'd make my browser window narrower.

I don't wanna fix my window, 'cause it's just fine. The only adjustment I
sometimes make is text resizing, but my window always stays maximized.

As above.


So leave your browser window that wide if that's the ideal width for
you.

It's ideal for that particular site, but for many others it's not. Most of
fixed pages are designed for 800x600 and higher (which is fine, cause it's
a good assumption that almost every [1] computer owner has 800x600 or
higher res. display these days).

[1] percentage of 640x480 users is neglible

Why not? Why only have 3 thumbs across the page if the user's browser
can fit 5?

If we can it doesn't mean we should. Maybe those 3 thumbs across the page
look much more elegant than 5? Web design is also kind of art sometimes,
where composition and nice proportions matter. I know, thad accessibility
and standards are important, but 'fixed' doesn't always mean
'unaccessible'.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I think it should me more flexible than it's now. It's often cited in this
NG.

FWIW, I think the horizontal scrollbar is due to some very long URLs.
But the site's a Wiki, not a showcase of perfect web-design. I guess if
you donated the money, the maintainer could pay someone to work on the
layout and code generation.


Matthias

 

[Mark Parnell]

I think it should me more flexible than it's now. It's often cited in this
NG.

Given the subject matter, I agree. But as Matthias said, it's maintained
by volunteers.

I often see examples of flexible design, which fall under lower resolutioms
(about <600px) - some elements are overlaping others, which makes the
information unreadable. All you get using fixed design is horizontal
scrollbar, but the content is still readable.

That's a problem with specific implementations, not fluid design in
principle.

I don't wanna fix my window, 'cause it's just fine. The only adjustment I
sometimes make is text resizing, but my window always stays maximized.

So why did you say the page is too wide? It's only as wide as your
browser window. If your browser window is the right size, where is the
problem?

It's ideal for that particular site, but for many others it's not. Most of
fixed pages are designed for 800x600 and higher (which is fine, cause it's
a good assumption that almost every [1] computer owner has 800x600 or
higher res. display these days).

So what you are saying is that because this site fills your browser
window it is too wide, while sites that are fixed at 800px wide are
fine? So make your browser window about 800px wide, and you can have the
best of both worlds!

[1] percentage of 640x480 users is neglible

You don't _really_ know that, but as has been discussed here numerous
times previously, screen resolution is irrelevant anyway. It is the
available canvas size that matters, which you have no way of even
guessing. Many users don't have their browser window maximised, and/or
they may have sidebars open - you just have no way of knowing.

 

[altamir]

Given the subject matter, I agree. But as Matthias said, it's
maintained by volunteers.

Is it an excuse? How much money should they've been paid to make it
properly?

That's a problem with specific implementations, not fluid design in
principle.

I know. That's the difference between theory and practice.

So why did you say the page is too wide? It's only as wide as your
browser window. If your browser window is the right size, where is the
problem?

(*) The original page is to wide when my window is maximized and I
_always_, in every application, maximize my window, 'cause I don't like
other windows and/or desktop to be in my sight. I also don't like any
sidebars. It's my custom. I've noticed that many people do the same.

It's ideal for that particular site, but for many others it's not.
Most of fixed pages are designed for 800x600 and higher (which is
fine, cause it's a good assumption that almost every [1] computer
owner has 800x600 or higher res. display these days).

So what you are saying is that because this site fills your browser
window it is too wide, while sites that are fixed at 800px wide are
fine?

Most of the fixed sites are designed for 800x600 and higher. Nothing's
gonna change that.

So make your browser window about 800px wide, and you can have
the best of both worlds!

See (*).

[1] percentage of 640x480 users is neglible

You don't _really_ know that, but as has been discussed here numerous
times previously, screen resolution is irrelevant anyway. It is the
available canvas size that matters, which you have no way of even
guessing. Many users don't have their browser window maximised, and/or
they may have sidebars open - you just have no way of knowing.

You're right, I don't know that, but there are some statistics, research,
market analysis, from which I know for sure, that 640x480 market share is
negligible, so I don't have to worry about horizontal scrollbar at that
resolution if I choose to design fixed site. I don't believe that many
people (with 800x600 res. displays) turn the sidebars on [2], cause they
get horizontal scrollbar viewing almost every site.

[2] And even if they do, that's their choice.

 

[altamir]

FWIW, I think the horizontal scrollbar is due to some very long URLs.
But the site's a Wiki, not a showcase of perfect web-design. I guess
if you donated the money, the maintainer could pay someone to work on
the layout and code generation.

There're thousand of things worth donation much more than this site.

 

[Wÿrm]

I don't believe that many

people (with 800x600 res. displays) turn the sidebars on [2], cause they
get horizontal scrollbar viewing almost every site.

I've never, even in 800x600 res. used full screen windows for IE or apps. I
have had "office bar" always in side since dawn of time of windows and
office bar And I know I am not only one, according way my friends see
things... I prefer myself see "parts" of other windows I have open so i can
open them faster clicking those parts than in taskbar...

I think that to look fullscreen/partial screen... One must make own choise
and that's personal. There never will be answer what is "best" or "right"
because ppl are different and want different things. I dont myself worry
about that, I just am trying to deal in way that my site should work for all
res... For me that works. Just pick what works for you and deal with it...

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Is it an excuse? How much money should they've been paid to make it
properly?

If you don't like the site, don't visit it. If you do like it, help
improve it. Stop whining.


Matthias

 

[altamir]

I don't believe that many
people (with 800x600 res. displays) turn the sidebars on [2], cause
they get horizontal scrollbar viewing almost every site.

I've never, even in 800x600 res. used full screen windows for IE or
apps. I have had "office bar" always in side since dawn of time of
windows and office bar And I know I am not only one, according way
my friends see things... I prefer myself see "parts" of other windows
I have open so i can open them faster clicking those parts than in
taskbar...

Fine. As I posted above, that's your choice.

I think that to look fullscreen/partial screen... One must make own
choise and that's personal. There never will be answer what is "best"
or "right" because ppl are different and want different things.

You're right. That's a good conclusion.

I dont myself worry about that, I just am trying to deal in way that my
site should work for all res... For me that works. Just pick what works
for you and deal with it...

That's what I'm trying to do.
Thanks for your rational opinion.