Is 800 x 600 old hat?

[Neredbojias]

I just tried it on your home page.

I've shrunken that page to under 300px in ie, ff, and opera, and seen no
particular problem. Sure, one of the graphics creates a horz scrollbar
and at a certain size the text is difficult to read because of the
largeness of the letters, but that's hardly an issue where I'm
accountable. Perhaps this "Palm Treo" doesn't handle html all that
correctly or attempts shrinkage, etc., with an inferior algorthm.

http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html

Yes, I can see what you mean here, and I agree. It's probably too long
for even a 1024x monitor. Maybe I'll ditz with that anon.

I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.

Your probably right, although non-complex text-and-graphics only, such as
a thumbnail page, might have a chance.

--
Neredbojias

A hearty, healthy,
Living body
Will vomit, spit,
And oft go potty.

- Burma Shave

 

[Ton den Hartog]

About 4 % of the visitors of my website have 800x600. Thank God there are no
640x480 The peak is mostly at 1280x1024 and 1024x768

It is my personal opinion that an application or website should fit in a
800x600 screen, maybe with a few scrollbars (test if your frames etc get
scrollbard on small screens, set the resolution to 800x600 and experience
yourself !!)

Ton

 

[Ton den Hartog]

His PDA is "just" 640x480 !!! :-(( .... That is about the highest resolution
a PDA have these days !! Not very thankful... 320x240 or 240x240 is a usuall
PDA screensize...

On topic again : for some websites a special PDA version is a good idea....

Ton

 

[dorayme]

I
think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
just CSS and HTML is ridiculous.

Is this something that anyone has seriously claimed for fluid
designs? The idea is usually that things should be reasonably
kosher for 700 or 800 px to bigger.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

When the link spans more than one line the box breaks and the first
and second line overlap.

Ah. What you are seeing is the 1px border giving the _appearance_ of an
overlap. If I remove the border, the line wraps with the same amount of
top and bottom margin/padding as any other paragraph.

I just changed the border of the link paragraph from border: 1px to
border-bottom: 1px and if you look again, you'll see that there is no
issue with "wrapping" or "overwriting".

Usually. I'm not good at managing multiple windows on one screen and
I have a second small monitor if I want to keep some reference data
visible.

Dual monitors, and one is 1680px with a maximized browser. This is a
rare circumstance, I would wager. Don't you keep your editor and your
browser(s) open side-by-side while working? I do, and my monitor is only
1152px wide. Sure, they overlap a bit.

I'd also say it would be a reasonable assumption that people who
actually do have a browser as wide as your screen are used to seeing
'long lines of text'.

No. You were _not_ pious. Unlike the post I responded to you were
careful to specify "within reason" and I assumed that you do not
think that expecting a site to work on a mobile phone and a wide
screen monitor was within reason.

I do expect my site to work well enough on a phone to be _useful_.
Perhaps not "exactly correct", but still quite useful, and certainly
lots better than the majority of sites when viewed on a small mobile
device.

 

[David Segall]

Pious? Spare me. Piety concerns religious belief - the belief that a
thing is true, when in reality it's not known for a fact whether it's
true or not.

The people making pious statements are the ones who claim to know all
about random Joe User visiting their site - what browser he's using,
whether he's disabled JavaScript, etc. They believe in something that
has not been proven as fact.

Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
irrational belief that I do know these things.

It is "religious" because it substitutes one irrational belief with
another one. It is true that you cannot predict how your site will be
viewed. That does not make it possible to design a site with CSS and
HTML that is usable by a visitor using a mobile phone and one using a
wide screen monitor. I used the word pious because the advocates seem
to believe that "any resolution" is more virtuous than accepting a
doable range of window sizes.

 

[Bergamot]

It is true that you cannot predict how your site will be
viewed. That does not make it possible to design a site with CSS and
HTML that is usable by a visitor using a mobile phone and one using a
wide screen monitor.

Actually, CSS @media rules make this very possible. There are some
broken mobile browsers that try to apply screen media rules to those
tiny displays, but otherwise you can make a site that is quite usable on
a mobile device.

Note that usable != optimized.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Actually, CSS @media rules make this very possible. There are some
broken mobile browsers that try to apply screen media rules to those
tiny displays, but otherwise you can make a site that is quite usable on
a mobile device.

Note that usable != optimized.

Nor does it mean identical. I think that's what gets a lot of deezyner
panties in a bunch when they see words like "flexible design will work in
any browser." They assume that "work" means "looks identical", when in
fact it means nothing of the sort - a working web site is one that any
user can read. Whether or not every user gets to see the pretty bells and
whistles is another matter entirely.

sherm--