Screen Size

Discussion in 'HTML' started by accooper, Mar 27, 2005.

  1. accooper

    accooper Guest

    OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries at no charge.
    It seems that they all believe that their web page needs to look great at
    640x480. I try to explain that this limits what can be done and that even
    14" monitors can do 800x600 which gives more room for more stuff.

    Am I being too picky? I make all my sights to expand and contract using %
    instead of Pixels.

    What do you all think?

    BTW This group is very helpful.

    --
    Andrew C. Cooper
    www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
    Check Out Our New Free Christian
    Music Downloads At
    www.wordforlife.com
     
    accooper, Mar 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. accooper wrote:

    > OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries at no
    > charge. It seems that they all believe that their web page needs to look
    > great at
    > 640x480.


    Can they provide statistics which show evidence of a large proportion of
    640x480 users? The only people who require such resolution are those with
    very modern PDA's. The standards (or common practice) says 800x600 is the
    minumum to cater for. One who insists on working at 640x480 will just have
    to cope with scroll bars.

    > I try to explain that this limits what can be done and that even
    > 14" monitors can do 800x600 which gives more room for more stuff.
    >
    > Am I being too picky?


    No.

    > I make all my sights to expand and contract using %
    > instead of Pixels.


    That's a good idea, but it gives you less control over the looks of the
    page.

    > What do you all think?
    >
    > BTW This group is very helpful.


    Yes, it is.

    Roy

    --
    Roy Schestowitz
    http://schestowitz.com
     
    Roy Schestowitz, Mar 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. accooper

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle accooper scribbled in the mud:

    > What do you all think?
    >
    > BTW This group is very helpful.


    Was a lot more heplful when RtS was here.

    --
    D?
     
    Duende, Mar 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Duende wrote:

    > Was a lot more heplful when RtS was here.


    SSSHHHHHHHH!

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 27, 2005
    #4
  5. On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:35:59 GMT, accooper <> wrote:

    > OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries at no charge.
    > It seems that they all believe that their web page needs to look great at
    > 640x480. I try to explain that this limits what can be done and that even
    > 14" monitors can do 800x600 which gives more room for more stuff.
    >


    Well, that is where you go wrong with your explanation. Your clients are right,
    you know. Their website _does_ need to look great at 640x480. You can safely
    confirm their desire for that. And you can satisfy their need for this. Knowing
    they are right, they're more likely to hear the real necessaty.

    Because what you need to explain, is that with no extra efford (read: no extra
    cost either), you can not only make a site look great at 640x480, but at a wide
    variety of viewport sizes at any resolution. You can provide a website that
    looks great in the more common sizes of viewports and still looks good in any
    viewport between 320x150 and 1280x1024. Regardless of screen size or
    resolutions, these viewport sizes are what matters. That is way over 800.000
    viewport sizes possible. And you can provide a good looking website for
    _all_off_them_. Now, wouldn't that just be what your client wants?



    --
    ,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
    | weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
    | webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
    |zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
     
    Barbara de Zoete, Mar 27, 2005
    #5
  6. in alt.html, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > accooper wrote:
    >
    > > OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries at no
    > > charge. It seems that they all believe that their web page needs to look
    > > great at
    > > 640x480.

    >
    > Can they provide statistics which show evidence of a large proportion of
    > 640x480 users?


    Well, I often use 600px wide browser window.

    > The only people who require such resolution are those with
    > very modern PDA's. The standards (or common practice) says 800x600 is the
    > minumum to cater for. One who insists on working at 640x480 will just have
    > to cope with scroll bars.


    Or you just need to know how to do flexible page. It is not impossible

    > > I try to explain that this limits what can be done and that even
    > > 14" monitors can do 800x600 which gives more room for more stuff.


    When I had 800*600, I always had about 600px wide window. I had some
    userCSS to fit most stuff in it, but usually, when website didn't fit, I
    left it. (it required one keystroke to move 800px wide window, nĀ“but I
    didn't use it very often)

    > > I make all my sights to expand and contract using %
    > > instead of Pixels.

    >
    > That's a good idea, but it gives you less control over the looks of the
    > page.


    That is bullshit. It is much less likely that your site will break if you
    use % than px. I never understood how controlling every px on 50% of
    browsers gives more control than making working layout for 90% of
    users...
    Of course, there is even smaller change to get it break, when you use em,
    % and px together. And you can still aim to perfect result. Just don't
    try pixelperfect, that'll never work, by definition (pixel perfect works
    only when used number of pixels are just right for user. Hardly ever
    happens.)


    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
     
    Lauri Raittila, Mar 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Barbara de Zoete wrote:
    That is way over 800.000 viewport sizes
    > possible. And you can provide a good looking website for
    > _all_off_them_. Now, wouldn't that just be what your client wants?


    Probably not. It sounds like they was a specific look and feel. This
    may not (probably can't) be done with a variable sized design.
    Sometimes, (you obviously disagree), design matters.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 27, 2005
    #7
  8. accooper wrote:
    > OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries....


    After looking at your example (I assume it is an example it was in your
    signature), you need to do what Barbara said, and make the sites
    variables sizes. If your client's sites are like your example, then
    there is no benefit to being a specific size. The page can be better
    served using variable sizes as it is lacking in almost any design right now.

    And Why do you capitalize every word?

    "We Are A Christian Missionary Helps Ministry, That Does Not Raise Funds
    For Missionaries, But We Collect Items That The People They Minister To
    May Use, To Meet Their Basic Human Needs. While Spreading The Good News
    Of The Saving Grace Of Jesus Christ."

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Lauri Raittila wrote:

    > That is bullshit. It is much less likely that your site will break if you
    > use % than px. I never understood how controlling every px on 50% of
    > browsers gives more control than making working layout for 90% of
    > users...


    That's because you do not understand the benefits (and power) of
    marketing, design, and layout. You (seem to) believe that these are
    meaningless. Others disagree with you. Me, I am somewhere in the
    middle and think each site should use the combination that is more
    effective for their particular product, service and site.

    Things that make people come back to the official star wars site
    (www.starwars.com) are not the same things that will make people come
    back to www.dictionary.com. The goals of the sites are as different as
    their needs. An all text star wars site is just as worthless as an eye
    candy filled dictionary.com site.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 27, 2005
    #9
  10. Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Lauri Raittila wrote:
    >
    >> That is bullshit. It is much less likely that your site will break if you
    >> use % than px. I never understood how controlling every px on 50% of
    >> browsers gives more control than making working layout for 90% of
    >> users...

    >
    > That's because you do not understand the benefits (and power) of
    > marketing, design, and layout. You (seem to) believe that these are
    > meaningless. Others disagree with you. Me, I am somewhere in the
    > middle and think each site should use the combination that is more
    > effective for their particular product, service and site.


    Excellent point. You must use statistics to make decisions. With AWStats,
    for example, it's possible to see that over 99% of visitors (in many cases)
    set resolution to greater or equal to 800x600. Does it justify the
    exclusion of the small minority? Not necessarily, but scrollbars are not
    pure evil. It is worse when you have Window$ Media Player objects embedded
    in your page.

    > Things that make people come back to the official star wars site
    > (www.starwars.com) are not the same things that will make people come
    > back to www.dictionary.com. The goals of the sites are as different as
    > their needs. An all text star wars site is just as worthless as an eye
    > candy filled dictionary.com site.


    Dictionary is bloated, slow and has distractions. IMHO, one should always
    use dict.org.

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    http://Schestowitz.com
     
    Roy Schestowitz, Mar 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>Things that make people come back to the official star wars site
    >>(www.starwars.com) are not the same things that will make people come
    >>back to www.dictionary.com. The goals of the sites are as different as
    >>their needs. An all text star wars site is just as worthless as an eye
    >>candy filled dictionary.com site.

    > Dictionary is bloated, slow and has distractions. IMHO, one should always
    > use dict.org.


    But you agree with the point I was making.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 27, 2005
    #11
  12. accooper

    accooper Guest

    Have I just been RAPED?

    Most of my visitors have english as a second language and I have been told
    that capitilizing the first letter makes it easier to read for them.

    As it stands right now I use variable sizing using percent, but what I was
    trying to say and did a lousy job at it is that most of the missionaries I
    deal with want picture galleries on there site and 640x480 just doesn't hold
    many pictures.

    I think the best suggestion I got was to explain to them that making a site
    800x600 would not cost them anything since they ain't paying for the web
    site anyway!

    --
    Andrew C. Cooper
    www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
    Check Out Our New Free Christian
    Music Downloads At
    www.wordforlife.com
    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:DKw1e.966$...
    > accooper wrote:
    >> OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries....

    >
    > After looking at your example (I assume it is an example it was in your
    > signature), you need to do what Barbara said, and make the sites variables
    > sizes. If your client's sites are like your example, then there is no
    > benefit to being a specific size. The page can be better served using
    > variable sizes as it is lacking in almost any design right now.
    >
    > And Why do you capitalize every word?
    >
    > "We Are A Christian Missionary Helps Ministry, That Does Not Raise Funds
    > For Missionaries, But We Collect Items That The People They Minister To
    > May Use, To Meet Their Basic Human Needs. While Spreading The Good News Of
    > The Saving Grace Of Jesus Christ."
    >
    > --
    > -=tn=-
     
    accooper, Mar 27, 2005
    #12
  13. accooper

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Dictionary is bloated, slow and has distractions. IMHO, one should always
    > use dict.org.


    Prefer "/usr/bin/dict".

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 27, 2005
    #13
  14. accooper wrote:

    > Have I just been RAPED?


    Whatever would have caused you to claim that?

    > Most of my visitors have english as a second language and I have
    > been told that capitilizing the first letter makes it easier to
    > read for them.


    Why would you want to display a style that they will not see at any
    other web site? Personally, English second or not, I think it is very
    hard to read; not quite as bad as all caps, but not far behind.

    > As it stands right now I use variable sizing using percent, but
    > what I was trying to say and did a lousy job at it is that most of
    > the missionaries I deal with want picture galleries on there site
    > and 640x480 just doesn't hold many pictures.


    ...a good reason to build a flexible site.

    > I think the best suggestion I got was to explain to them that
    > making a site 800x600 would not cost them anything since they ain't
    > paying for the web site anyway!


    For folks with an 800x600 monitor, you will never get 800x600 in a
    browser window. Scrollbars ... toolbars ... taskbar ... you can best
    hope for about 750x500 max. See the two grid links after: "Check your
    browser window size, in pixels:"

    http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/

    Please don't top-post.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 27, 2005
    #14
  15. Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Dictionary is bloated, slow and has distractions. IMHO, one should always
    >> use dict.org.

    >
    > Prefer "/usr/bin/dict".


    Isn't that just an interface to dict.org? I have a dictionary in my docking
    panel, both under Ubuntu (GNOME) and SuSE (KDE).

    Highlight text and press the tiny "C" button. Doesn't get any quicker than
    that... also good for acronyms and _recent_ slang/terminology as the
    database is remote.

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    http://Schestowitz.com
     
    Roy Schestowitz, Mar 27, 2005
    #15
  16. in alt.html, Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Lauri Raittila wrote:
    >
    > > That is bullshit. It is much less likely that your site will break if you
    > > use % than px. I never understood how controlling every px on 50% of
    > > browsers gives more control than making working layout for 90% of
    > > users...

    >
    > That's because you do not understand the benefits (and power) of
    > marketing, design, and layout.


    Yes I do. But I have never understood how *broken* layout would impress
    anybody. If 50% people gets pixel perfect layout, that means that 50% of
    people *don't* get pixel perfect layout. And that usually means I get
    broken layout, and I do define layout broken when some decorative lines
    don't meet, when they should and viewing situation is about normal.

    The very cool layout only has benefits when it actually works - if there
    is flaw, it makes whole layout not cool. By designing with pixel perfect
    assumption, you easily make your layout have ugly gap here and there or
    scrollbars everywhere. With doing some compromises on pixel perfectness,
    you can archive site where layout works perfectly (but not pixel
    perfectly), in 90% of times.

    The numbers might be 90% and 99% as well, I have no statistical proof.
    But I think it is clear that flexible layout has bigger succes rate. (as
    long as it is done right - just doing layout using CSS is no guarantee
    of anything.)

    > You (seem to) believe that these are meaningless.


    Strawman arguments are good when you can't think anything else? I belive
    great deal on how design can change things. Good design creates image
    that people behind know their stuff. If it is beutiful, they are
    obviously creative. But if it breaks, well, nice try, but...

    I know that you can't design website that don't have broken design with
    using pixels as unit.

    > Things that make people come back to the official star wars site
    > (www.starwars.com) are not the same things that will make people come
    > back to www.dictionary.com.


    Sure, but both cases, it has not much to do with layout... At least,
    design of both sites sucks so badly...

    The content is the reason they come back. If user knows alternative
    source for content, with better layout, he propably uses it.

    > The goals of the sites are as different as
    > their needs. An all text star wars site is just as worthless as an eye
    > candy filled dictionary.com site.


    There seems to be som sort of fixation among pixel perfect people that
    they think all people that don't agree them would only use text for
    everything etc.

    The starwars site uses flash. So why not do it well, so that it fills
    browser nicely. With flash, they should not limit themselves by bitmap
    graphics.

    Actually, site works in about 800 wide window just fine, when I force it
    to fit it (Opera 8b3: Fit to width). There is some zooming artifacts, but
    using vectors for fonts would take them away. And even as is it is much
    better than scrolling horizontally. After all, I like to see whole site,
    especially when it is designed the way it is.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
     
    Lauri Raittila, Mar 27, 2005
    #16
  17. in alt.html, accooper wrote:
    > Have I just been RAPED?


    No, but plonked for making such comparison. As well as top posting.

    > Most of my visitors have english as a second language and I have been told
    > that capitilizing the first letter makes it easier to read for them.


    You have been told to. Reminds me of font analogy.

    There is alwasy person or 2 that have different idea. They are most
    likely to complain. Like you don't make text on your site white on blue,
    when someoen tells you that it is easier to read. Unless, there was some
    real proof that it makes it easier to read.

    Anyway, english is my second language (actually started learning it as
    third), and it surely is harder to read than all lowrer case, let alone
    normal sentence case. SAme applies for all languages I know even tiny
    bit.

    > As it stands right now I use variable sizing using percent, but what I was
    > trying to say and did a lousy job at it is that most of the missionaries I
    > deal with want picture galleries on there site and 640x480 just doesn't hold
    > many pictures.


    Then don't limit yourself to 640, but allow full window. Something like
    this:
    http://www.student.oulu.fi/~egea/Photo_Gallery/Virpiniemi/index.html
    (That site also stands as example how pixel perfect layout breaks, reason
    was that I had not enough time to make that logo better.)

    (Of course it works on 640 and 800 and 1200 wide screens, but it could
    work on smaller as well)

    If you are thinking about individual images, they look just fine on
    620*410. Make them better quality, if there is lots of details, that
    often helps as much as bigger size.



    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
     
    Lauri Raittila, Mar 27, 2005
    #17
  18. In article <d268ad$vod$>,
    Roy Schestowitz <> wrote:
    >
    > You must use statistics to make decisions.


    You must first decide whether the statistics you're considering using
    are valid and applicable to your particular situation. "Lies, damn lies
    and statistics." Not just a cute one-liner.

    > With AWStats, for example, it's possible to see that over 99% of visitors (in many cases)
    > set resolution to greater or equal to 800x600.


    Resolution is not the same as the size of the browser window, even if
    the window is maximized.

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Mar 27, 2005
    #18
  19. accooper

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dictionary is bloated, slow and has distractions. IMHO, one should
    >>> always use dict.org.

    >>
    >> Prefer "/usr/bin/dict".

    >
    > Isn't that just an interface to dict.org?


    "/usr/bin/dict" is a generic DICT protocol (RFC 2229) client. It can be
    used as an interface for dict.org, or for any other server that supports
    the DICT protocol.

    As it happens, I use it to access my own local DICTd server, as it's much
    faster that way.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 27, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <LDw1e.965$>,
    Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    > Barbara de Zoete wrote:
    > That is way over 800.000 viewport sizes
    > > possible. And you can provide a good looking website for
    > > _all_off_them_. Now, wouldn't that just be what your client wants?

    >
    > Probably not. It sounds like they was a specific look and feel. This
    > may not (probably can't) be done with a variable sized design.


    Since the OP didn't include a link to any of his/her/its sites, it's
    hard to say, but judging from the church- and ministry-related sites
    I've seen in the past, having lofty discussions about their desired look
    and feel was like discussing whether an auto mechanic's work clothes
    should be made out of silk or seersucker. _Much_ bigger issues to
    contend with than fashion. :)

    > Sometimes, (you obviously disagree), design matters.


    She just said in the majority of cases one _can_ provide a good-looking
    and flexibly designed website. How does that equate to saying design
    doesn't matter?

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Mar 27, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Russell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    377
    Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. Piet
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    411
  3. Pat
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    541
  4. owl
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    880
  5. Jason Cavett

    Preferred Size, Minimum Size, Size

    Jason Cavett, May 23, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    12,583
    Michael Jung
    May 25, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page