Screen Size

A

accooper

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
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

accooper said:
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
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

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 |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
 
L

Lauri Raittila

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

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, n´but I
didn't use it very often)
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.)
 
T

Travis Newbury

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.
 
T

Travis Newbury

accooper said:
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."
 
T

Travis Newbury

Lauri said:
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.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

Travis said:
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
 
A

accooper

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
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

accooper said:
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.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

Toby said:
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
 
L

Lauri Raittila

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.
 
L

Lauri Raittila

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.
 
J

Joel Shepherd

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.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Roy said:
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.
 
J

Joel Shepherd

Travis Newbury said:
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
That is way over 800.000 viewport sizes

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?
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,734
Messages
2,569,441
Members
44,832
Latest member
GlennSmall

Latest Threads

Top