Screen Resolution

D

Dave

Hi Guys,

I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my screen
resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on 1024x768. My
question really is, will I have to drop the settings below that as other
people have smaller monitors therefore their screen resolutions will be
smaller.

Is their a minimum resolution to use, or will the 1024x768 be ok.

Many many thanks guys.

Keep up the excellent work!

Dave
 
S

Steve R.

Dave wrote in message ...
I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my screen
resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on 1024x768. My
question really is, will I have to drop the settings below that as other
people have smaller monitors therefore their screen resolutions will be
smaller.

Some good reading for you below

Design for any-size-resolution ...
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

The myth of 800x600 ...
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=2684/nam1012432092/index.html

How can I make my pages look good on most monitors?
http://www.thepattysite.com/window_sizes1.cfm
 
B

Barefoot Kid

| Hi Guys,
|
| I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my screen
| resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on 1024x768. My
| question really is, will I have to drop the settings below that as other
| people have smaller monitors therefore their screen resolutions will be
| smaller.
|
| Is their a minimum resolution to use, or will the 1024x768 be ok.
|
| Many many thanks guys.
|
| Keep up the excellent work!

resolution isnt much of an issue if u r going for a fluid design but if u r going for a fixed width
design then 800x600 is a safe bet as a significant number of people (over 40%) use this res
 
B

Barefoot Kid

| On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:14:05 -0000, "Barefoot Kid"
| <[email protected]> declared in alt.html:
| >
| > resolution isnt much of an issue if u r going for a fluid design but if u r
| > going for a fixed width design then 800x600 is a safe bet as a significant
| > number of people (over 40%) use this res
|
| Except that most of them probably don't have their browser window
| maximised.

got any stats for that?

| The myth of 800x600 ...
| http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=2684/nam1012432092/index.html

funny how that page has scroll bars at 800x600
 
M

Mark Parnell

|
| Except that most of them probably don't have their browser window
| maximised.

got any stats for that?

No. You? No? Exactly. You have no way of knowing. Besides that, even
assuming they all have it maximised, and don't have any sidebars
reducing the width of the available canvas, 40% is well below half. Why
cater for less than half of your visitors when you can cater to them
all?
| The myth of 800x600 ...
| http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=2684/nam1012432092/index.html

funny how that page has scroll bars at 800x600

True, but "do as I say, not as I do"... :)
 
B

Barefoot Kid

| No. You? No? Exactly. You have no way of knowing. Besides that, even
| assuming they all have it maximised, and don't have any sidebars
| reducing the width of the available canvas, 40% is well below half. Why
| cater for less than half of your visitors when you can cater to them
| all?

i woulda thought that most ppl have their browsers maximised, i've noticed this in the real life, i
said he should use 800x600 IF he decides to use a fixed width design
 
M

Mark Parnell

i woulda thought that most ppl have their browsers maximised, i've noticed this in the real life, i
said he should use 800x600 IF he decides to use a fixed width design

But he _shouldn't_ use a fixed design, so the size to pick if he does is
irrelevant. As I said before, you really have no way of knowing how many
users will have their browser maximised. And even if it is maximised,
they may have a sidebar showing.

BTW: You haven't reduced the line length of your posts yet.
 
B

Barefoot Kid

| On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:06:05 -0000, "Barefoot Kid"
| <[email protected]> declared in alt.html:
| >
| > i woulda thought that most ppl have their browsers maximised, i've noticed this in the real
life, i
| > said he should use 800x600 IF he decides to use a fixed width design
|
| But he _shouldn't_ use a fixed design, so the size to pick if he does is
| irrelevant. As I said before, you really have no way of knowing how many
| users will have their browser maximised. And even if it is maximised,
| they may have a sidebar showing.

u shouldnt say shouldnt, it depends on the circumstances

| BTW: You haven't reduced the line length of your posts yet.

yeah i know :p
 
R

Richard

Dave said:
I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my
screen resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on
1024x768. My question really is, will I have to drop the settings below
that as other people have smaller monitors therefore their screen
resolutions will be smaller.
Is their a minimum resolution to use, or will the 1024x768 be ok.
Many many thanks guys.
Keep up the excellent work!

Resolution is not dependendant on the size of the monitor.
a 5 inch screen can be 1024x768 just the same.
What changes is the dimension of the pixel.
Learn how to use "margin" in designing with CSS.
Margin:auto will "float" the layout in accordance with resolution and
dimensions of the window.
Just design the site so that the contents can "float".
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Richard said:
Margin:auto will "float" the layout in accordance with resolution and
dimensions of the window.

What on earth are you talking about this time? The float property makes
an element float, not margin. margin:auto will center a block-level
element, but that doesn't have anything to do with floating.
 
D

David Dorward

Barefoot said:
i woulda thought that most ppl have their browsers maximised, i've noticed
this in the real life

Straw poll of my office: About 2/3rds do not run maximised.
 
K

Kris

Barefoot Kid said:
| No. You? No? Exactly. You have no way of knowing. Besides that, even
| assuming they all have it maximised, and don't have any sidebars
| reducing the width of the available canvas, 40% is well below half. Why
| cater for less than half of your visitors when you can cater to them
| all?

i woulda thought that most ppl have their browsers maximised,

Windows in Windows OS and Internet Explorer are not maximized by
default. It requires user intervention before they are maximized. It is
safe to assume the user did this with full awareness. Meaning, they
might just as well not surf with windows maximized.

Full-screen, maximized windows on other OSs are a rarity.
i've noticed
this in the real life,

Then still, do you know about the types of toolbars people surf with?
Statusbar? Buttonbar? Favoritesbar? Googlebar?
i
said he should use 800x600 IF he decides to use a fixed width design

That he should not. Available browsercanvas on 800x600 resolution (after
subtraction of default toolbars and browser chrome) is far less than
those measurements.
 
J

jake

Dave said:
Hi Guys,

I have just started to build a website, and I am unsure as regards my screen
resolution, (The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on 1024x768. My
question really is, will I have to drop the settings below that as other
people have smaller monitors therefore their screen resolutions will be
smaller.

Is their a minimum resolution to use, or will the 1024x768 be ok.

Many many thanks guys.

Keep up the excellent work!

Dave
It all depends on whether your producing your pages with a fixed or
fluid design.

With a fluid design (preferred) the contents will move around to fill up
the available space.

With a fixed design -- make sure it looks good at 800x600 in MSIE (and
make sure that the text can be re-sized).

regards.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Quoth the raven named Kris:
Windows PC users in my office: 4
Having their windows maximized: 1

In my office it was always:
Windows PC users in my office: dozens
Maximized: 1

That was the boss. He was the only person who couldn't do more than
one task at a time.
 
A

Andrew Banks

When you're working on a site where the visual representation is highly
important.

A lot of fluid sites look nasty at 1600x1200 where as something with a fixed
width of 800 or 1024 looks a lot better
 
P

Paul Furman

Andrew said:
A lot of fluid sites look nasty at 1600x1200 where as something with a fixed
width of 800 or 1024 looks a lot better

I was just looking into this for the reason that text is hard to read
stretched 1600 pixels wide. Unfortunately, the css solution
max-width/min-width is not well supported. IE doesn't support it yet and
Mozilla 1.2 fails to make scroll bars when it gets down to where they
are needed or if I put a big picture in there, it's just lost with no
control.

The following test site includes a workaround for IE:
http://www.edgehill.net/html/css/max-min-width2.htm
sorry I forgot to document the source of that code, I was just
experimenting.

Ideally the fixed width should be as narrow as feasible. Text is
supposed to wrap at about 60 characters to be the most comfortable. The
sample above sets that as 30em which is relative to the font size. That
means the fixed width will vary depending on each visitor's font size
settings to optimise itself. It really would be ideal if I could allow
that to shrink further without getting buggy, I know sometimes I want to
shrink a page very narrow so I can compare it with something else on my
screen.
 

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
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top