designing to fit into screen resolution

E

Ed Seedhouse

I am aware of the browsers/OS etc statistics and of opinion that in desire
to match all possible user setups and habits, one has to decide where to
draw the line.

One can draw the line quite broadly if one designs with foresite and
understanding of the medium. Web pages are, by nature, flexible. That's
just the way it is. That being so you can either deny it and pretend it
isn't so, or understand it and learn how to work with it, not against
it.

The Web is Not Paper! Anyone who designs as if it is is doing what
radio producers did in the 1950s when they moved over to TV. They
assumed that what worked on radio would work on TV. As anyone who has
watched any 1950's TV shows lately knows, they were wrong, and their
work suffered accordingly.

Anyone who doesn't understand the differences between the web and paper
is in the position of someone in the 1960s trying to produce a TV show
based on his knowledge of radio.

The web provides suitable tools for designing pages that work with the
media, and anyone who doesn't learn them is just plain living in the
past. Such questions as "what resolution should I design to?" are just
evidence that the questioner has no understanding of the medium.

Don't design for *any* resolution, design for them *all*. Tools are
available to make a web page work on all of them, and those who don't
learn them and use them are rapidly going to be obsolete.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Ed said:
One can draw the line quite broadly if one designs with foresite and
understanding of the medium. Web pages are, by nature, flexible. That's
just the way it is. That being so you can either deny it and pretend it
isn't so, or understand it and learn how to work with it, not against
it.

The Web is Not Paper! Anyone who designs as if it is is doing what
radio producers did in the 1950s when they moved over to TV. They
assumed that what worked on radio would work on TV. As anyone who has
watched any 1950's TV shows lately knows, they were wrong, and their
work suffered accordingly.

Anyone who doesn't understand the differences between the web and paper
is in the position of someone in the 1960s trying to produce a TV show
based on his knowledge of radio.

Well put and well illustrated!

The web provides suitable tools for designing pages that work with the
media, and anyone who doesn't learn them is just plain living in the
past. Such questions as "what resolution should I design to?" are just
evidence that the questioner has no understanding of the medium.

Don't design for *any* resolution, design for them *all*. Tools are
available to make a web page work on all of them, and those who don't
learn them and use them are rapidly going to be obsolete.
 
A

aa

Jonathan N. Little said:
Well put and well illustrated!

Yes, but with one reservation. To know differentce between web and paper one
need to understand paper.
To know difference between radio and TV show one needs to understand radio
To know difference between a horse and a car one needs to understand a
horse.
Do you suggest every drive learner apart from Highhway code and practical
driving also spend time at a Farm to learn horses?
The number of replies to my question and their variety suggests that your
opinon is just one of many. And like other opinions it was useful for me to
know it. Thank you
 
A

aa

John Hosking said:
I am sorry to tell you this but the pages look bad at 1024x768, and
don't get any better at 800x600 (for which they're supposedly made). It
looks like the elements which are visible are misaligned and
overlapping. Oh, I see it looks a bit better in IE but I checked first
in Firefox.

John, you have absolutely nothing to be sorry about. As I said, I knowingly
ignore FireFoxes and the likes simply because my audience, which is quite
limited, do not use them
How do I know which css to use? There is a JS function which returns a
resolution on a client computer. And I also took an executive decision not
to care about visitors who browse the Internet with their browser window
minimised to 1/4 of its normal size. Simply because there not many of such
come to me, and those who came, not my customers anyway. Same applies to
people with 640x400 resolution.
I am not saying this is the best solution. From designer skill it is quite
bad, actually. But for my business this is the best value for money.
Or the best money for time spent, to be more precise
 
D

dorayme

http://www.pifpaf.front.ru/arenda_en.htm
Mind, for the moment it is made for 800x600

I am sorry to tell you this but the pages look bad at 1024x768, and
don't get any better at 800x600 (for which they're supposedly made). It
looks like the elements which are visible are misaligned and
overlapping. Oh, I see it looks a bit better in IE but I checked first
in Firefox.[/QUOTE]

And broken in Safari too... ouch that red text and nerve jangling
boinging. To think, I got up at 5 am to get work done and am soon
taking a peek at this ng and hearing this!
 
D

dorayme

Ed Seedhouse said:
Don't design for *any* resolution, design for them *all*. Tools are
available to make a web page work on all of them, and those who don't
learn them and use them are rapidly going to be obsolete.

Rapidly? The pace doesn't look all that hot from where I am
sitting.
 
T

the red dot

aa said:
John, you have absolutely nothing to be sorry about. As I said, I knowingly
ignore FireFoxes and the likes simply because my audience, which is quite
limited, do not use them
How do I know which css to use? There is a JS function which returns a
resolution on a client computer. And I also took an executive decision not
to care about visitors who browse the Internet with their browser window
minimised to 1/4 of its normal size. Simply because there not many of such
come to me, and those who came, not my customers anyway. Same applies to
people with 640x400 resolution.
I am not saying this is the best solution. From designer skill it is quite
bad, actually. But for my business this is the best value for money.
Or the best money for time spent, to be more precise
but why are you determined to build something incorrectly? doing it properly
is easier.
 
D

dorayme

Anyone who doesn't understand the differences between the web and paper
is in the position of someone in the 1960s trying to produce a TV show
based on his knowledge of radio.

Well put and well illustrated![/QUOTE]

Maybe... but I would think it might be better the other way
around: namely that someone grown up on TV moving to radio and
not realising that content has to be conveyed more imaginatively.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

aa said:
Yes, but with one reservation. To know differentce between web and paper one
need to understand paper.

So you don't understand paper? Then why are your trying to emulated what
you do not know on the web?
 
A

aa

So you don't understand paper? Then why are your trying to emulated what
you do not know on the web?
Excuse me, but I am not engaged in emulating paper on the web for I see no
point in such an exercise.
I guess this is a wrong approach practiced by old farts trying to find a
place in new reality. I hope you are not one of these.
I believe webdesign is for people not burdened with useless habits
 
A

aa

Ed Jensen said:
Wow...that web site is hideously bad...impressively bad...
She is not Mona Liza indeed. It might be Cinderella for it keeps bringing
customers pretty well. There is a theory: beautifulness of the site should
not shadow the ugliness of the product being sold:)
Yet I welcome constructive criticism. If you specify what particular is bad
and how this bad can be turned into good, the advice will be appreciated and
followed, if feasible.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

aa said:
She is not Mona Liza indeed. It might be Cinderella for it keeps bringing
customers pretty well. There is a theory: beautifulness of the site should
not shadow the ugliness of the product being sold:)
Yet I welcome constructive criticism. If you specify what particular is bad
and how this bad can be turned into good, the advice will be appreciated and
followed, if feasible.

Obviously you have only previewed your site with IE.
 
A

aa

Jonathan N. Little said:
Obviously you have only previewed your site with IE.
So do my customers. I declared this somwhere at the beginning.
Look, here I was not asking how to write code to be satisfy for all the
browsers.
My question was precisely about coding for different resolutions for IE on
XP/w2k - nothing else.
For some reason the narrow question turned into a broad discussion on
general web design principles.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

aa said:
So do my customers. I declared this somwhere at the beginning. Look,
here I was not asking how to write code to be satisfy for all the
browsers. My question was precisely about coding for different
resolutions for IE on XP/w2k - nothing else. For some reason the
narrow question turned into a broad discussion on general web design
principles.

That's pretty normal, especially with a site and attitude like yours.
Perhaps you would like money back?
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

aa said:
So do my customers. I declared this somwhere at the beginning.
Look, here I was not asking how to write code to be satisfy for all the
browsers.
My question was precisely about coding for different resolutions for IE on
XP/w2k - nothing else.
For some reason the narrow question turned into a broad discussion on
general web design principles.

Good Luck! Come back when you are interested in learning about designing
web pages...
 
A

aa

Blinky the Shark said:
That's pretty normal, especially with a site and attitude like yours.

What someone's attitude has to do with web design?
And what is wrong with my attitude?
That I have an opinion different of the majority?
Have I insulted anyone in here? Was rude? Indicatre where and whom and I
appologise.
For the moment the picture is exactly reverse. Several people here including
yourself are trying to harass me.
Be advised that I am not harassable -this probably will save your time ;)
 
A

aa

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Not to worry ... it looks just as bad in IE. <lol>
This phrase has already been repeated here many times and add nothing new
If you are constructive, be more specific
If you just find pleasure in harassing - be my guest
 
N

Neredbojias

Rapidly? The pace doesn't look all that hot from where I am
sitting.

The pace of obsolecence is directly proportional to the square of the rate
of progress.
 

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

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,898
Latest member
BlairH7607

Latest Threads

Top