Screen Resolution

[Andrew Banks]

Something in my mind seems to remember that the ideal number of elements the
human mind can analyse/read/understand in one go is 7 +-2 (so really between
5 and 9)

This applies to words on a line, lists etc...

 

[Steve R.]

Paul Furman wrote in message ...

I was just looking into this for the reason that text is hard to read
stretched 1600 pixels wide.

That's where tables are so useful to put everything into a nice neat
package at say 80% or 90% width, but *everyone* says don't use tables for
layout, but I and my colleagues still do for that very reason.

They work so we use them -
"If it ain't broke - Don't try to fix it".

 

[Paul Furman]

Something in my mind seems to remember that the ideal number of elements the
human mind can analyse/read/understand in one go is 7 +-2 (so really between
5 and 9)

This applies to words on a line, lists etc...

The site where I got this info said they did studies and they
thought it was because of having to move your eyes back &
forth, straining to track where the next line should be. This
message is wrapped at about 60 characters (if the manual
returns don't get strippped out). Looks like about a dozen
words per line.

 

[Paul Furman]

...the css solution
max-width/min-width...

The following test site includes a workaround for IE:
http://www.edgehill.net/html/css/max-min-width2.htm

Oops, that one is completely messed up in Mozilla. This one is better:
http://www.edgehill.net/html/css/max-min-width3.htm

 

[Barefoot Kid]

| On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:38:51 -0000, "Barefoot Kid"
| <[email protected]> declared in alt.html:
| >
| > u shouldnt say shouldnt, it depends on the circumstances
|
| Under what circumstances is a fixed-width design better than a fluid
| design?

well all flash sites or hybrid flash sites where say the navigation is done in flash, making these
sites fluid would stretch out the swf movies meaning that any bitmap graphics would become horribly
pixelated and also where the design just wouldnt work as fluid

 

[John W.]

Windows PC users in my office: 4

Having their windows maximized: 1

To what size?

John OO

 

[Barefoot Kid]

| Then still, do you know about the types of toolbars people surf with?
| Statusbar? Buttonbar? Favoritesbar? Googlebar?

most of those bars affect the vertical height not the horizontal width which is more important

| > 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.

dont be silly, did i say he should make the design 800px wide? no

 

[Barefoot Kid]

| 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.

ok i'll play...

number of pcs in my office: 3
number of pcs having maxed browser windows: 3

 

[Els]

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.


Then still, do you know about the types of toolbars people surf with?
Statusbar? Buttonbar? Favoritesbar? Googlebar?

the Statusbar, and Googlebar, don't take away any width on
my browsers...

Favoritesbar does, but it's sooo easy to turn it off when I
want to have a wider view.

Anyway, my experience is (purely based on my own behaviour
and that of my 'average-internet-user-friends'), that when
having a monitor that doesn't do more than 800x600 or even
1024x768, everybody uses all applications maximised. And no
fav.bar working. Up till last July, I was one of those
people, I didn't even have an option to make it 1024x768
pixels if I wanted to.
Now I choose to have my screen at 1280x1024, and rarely have
my browser full screen. But.. never smaller than 800x600.

I remember someone said it's nicer to look at fixed width
than to flexible. And I agree with that
I think that has to do with two things: the lines to read
are never too long, and , not unimportant, a good designer
can make a nice 'picture' of the whole site, whereas with
flexible design, he has no way of knowing how people will
view it, and what the composition would look like on their
screens.
An exception for me, are those sites that are purely giving
information, that people want to read, regardless of how
ugly it looks, or how difficult it is to read.
Something like information about medication or diseases
springs to mind.
Who cares what that looks like. But homepages, designer's
pages, anything that people want to look good.. I'd say
fixed design isn't all that bad.

 

[Andrew Glasgow]

Paul Furman wrote in message ...

That's where tables are so useful to put everything into a nice neat
package at say 80% or 90% width, but *everyone* says don't use tables for
layout, but I and my colleagues still do for that very reason.

They work so we use them -
"If it ain't broke - Don't try to fix it".

max-width is useful to prevent this.

 

[Steve R.]

Andrew Glasgow wrote in message ...

max-width is useful to prevent this.

If you had read the post I was replying to, it said ...

"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".

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

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.

I usually use a maximized window at 1280x1024, and that's how I like it.
I know how to resize my browser window, and I will if text is too hard
to read at that width.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

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

You know, I have an awful lot of trouble believing that someone who runs
their *screen* at 1600x1200 (which is really only practical on very large
monitors) would have their *browser* maximized, unless the whole reason
they're using a large monitor and high resolution is to allow the use of
very large fonts to compensate for poor vision. The more real estate on
the screen, the more occupants that are likely to be sharing it.

I'm not aware of any systems that come configured with 1600x1200 as their
default resolution (since it would make things way too small for anyone
with a CRT less than 21" or an LCD less than 19"), so plainly anyone who's
using such a resolution knows how to change it, and I have even more
trouble believing that someone would know how to change their screen
resolution without knowing how to resize their browser window. The only
logical conclusion is that anyone who's running a browser with a viewport
more than 1024, or even 800, pixels wide is doing it for a specific reason
that makes sense to them, rather than out of ignorance, and that if you try
to second-guess them you'll only wind up annoying them.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

Something in my mind seems to remember that the ideal number of
elements the human mind can analyse/read/understand in one go is 7 +-2
(so really between 5 and 9)

This applies to words on a line, lists etc...

You're misremembering. The 7+/-2 rule is for the number of items people
can hold in working memory (what used to be called "short-term memory") at
one time. But when you've got all the items in your field of vision, you
don't need to hold *any* of them in working memory, so the rule doesn't
apply.

 

[kchayka]

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

Your argument is flawed. What kind of studies have you done (or read)
that show any significant number of folks with 1600x1200 screen size
actually use full-size browser windows?

BTW, I use 1280x1024 and never use full-size browser windows. Sites
fixed at 800px wide are usually the ones that are nasty, too. Most
often, it's because the author also stoopidly set too small font sizes
and the layout does not adjust well to a larger text size.

Stick that in your pipe, eh?

 

[Mark Parnell]

well all flash sites or hybrid flash sites where say the navigation is done in flash, making these
sites fluid would stretch out the swf movies meaning that any bitmap graphics would become horribly
pixelated and also where the design just wouldnt work as fluid

That's just an argument against Flash...

 

[Mark Parnell]

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

As others have said, very few people with high resolutions like that
will have their browser maximised, and it they do it is for a reason.
Are you saying you know better than they do?

 

[Mark Parnell]

I remember someone said it's nicer to look at fixed width
than to flexible. And I agree with that

Nicer for the deezyner, perhaps.

I think that has to do with two things: the lines to read
are never too long,

How do you know how large your visitor will have their text? If they
have it at 200%, the lines will be very short at 800px.

and , not unimportant, a good designer
can make a nice 'picture' of the whole site, whereas with
flexible design, he has no way of knowing how people will
view it, and what the composition would look like on their
screens.

Welcome to the www.

 

[kchayka]

I remember someone said it's nicer to look at fixed width
than to flexible.

I think the only ones who say that are the folks designing those pages.
Users generally care far less about those things. In most cases, they
don't go to web sites only to look at them. The site has some use other
than just desktop wallpaper.

And I agree with that

And I don't. So why would you be right and not me?

I think that has to do with two things: the lines to read
are never too long,

But by imposing a pixel-width limitation, you are also imposing the
probability that the lines will be too short, especially when the
visitor uses a larger text size. That is just as bad, maybe worse, for
readability. I run across it all the time with multi-columned pages. 2
or 3 words per line in a long column is *very* tedious to read. I curse
stoopid deezyners every time I come across a site like that.

If you are going to insist on a fixed width, at least make it in ems so
it adjusts with the text size. But that will undoubtedly cause
horizontal scrolling for some portion of your visitors, which sucks, too.

and , not unimportant, a good designer
can make a nice 'picture' of the whole site, whereas with
flexible design, he has no way of knowing how people will
view it, and what the composition would look like on their
screens.

You seem to miss the fact that a good designer understands the medium,
and works with its strengths. Adaptability to the browsing environment
is the web's greatest strength, IMO. Trying to force a fixed design
goes against its very nature. That doesn't seem like good design for
this particular medium.

You also fail to realize that, unless it's all done in graphics or
Flash, the designer has no way of knowing how people will view it even
if they do try to fix the design. The visitor has all the control,
whether or not they utilize any of that control isn't relevant.

An exception for me, are those sites that are purely giving
information, that people want to read, regardless of how
ugly it looks, or how difficult it is to read.

That's funny, I find fixed designs to be the most difficult to read.
Flexible designs are inherently more usable *because* of their
adaptability, not in spite of it.

 

[Craig]

(The monitor itself is 19 inch) I am running it on 1024x768.

Why?? Do yourself a favor and bump that up to 1280x1024 or 1600x1200