When getting funky with you HTML or what ever you do in a darkened room with your personal computer what screen res do you design at. A starting point. I feel that it is no longer feasable to design for users at a level of 640*480 and design at 800*600 and use that to make as many people as possible happy.<br />
<br />
Want your views.<!--content-->But my way of thinking is to code the main content at 640x480 to avoid scroll bars and allow plenty of room for banner ads later on along the sides.<!--content-->800x600 is safe enough to design for. right around 50% of users seem to be still using this resolution, and as someone recently pointed out here, it's probably out of ignorance re: display settings. either way, as long as this is the most used resolution, it's what i'll design for. even set my monitor at 800x600.<!--content-->We have a believer in the 800*600 church of web design. Let Mass begin.<!--content-->oh yeah! actually, i'm of the mindset that if you use percentage-driven width, and use it well, you'll never have to worry too much about user resolution.<!--content-->hmmmnnn.... <br />
<br />
depends on the layout. I'd prefer to code in percentges and let things spread out accordingly.... but that ideal just doesn't always work. <br />
<br />
So, if I have some super graphically driven layout that I can't see past breaking.... I'll design it to fit an 800x600 screen in a centered table for users of higher rez. <br />
<br />
type these commands directly into the url (without the space in the word javascript):<br />
<br />
javascript: resizeTo(800,600)<br />
javascript: resizeTo(1024,768)<br />
<br />
<br />
and you'll get a feel for what your users are seeing. Personally, I'd love to see everyone use 1024x768. Just tell me this: what is with all these flash designers trying to cram a whole website into a 400X300 popup? They get animation, vector graphics, mp3 sounds, and more... and they try to fit it into an even smaller space that 640x480??!<!--content-->So Transmortha you use % rather than a defined pixel layout?<!--content-->I use 1024*768 designs. But only because most of my work is for an intranet - and I pretty much set the company standard on web stuff.<br />
<br />
I think that the best way would probably be percentages, but it might be hard to achieve sometimes. This works well because the user may not have the browser window at full screen.<br />
<br />
I wonder if it would be possible to use percentages and set a minimum width in pixels?<!--content-->well I always used to design at percentages to allow for all browsers, this however proved a problem as it looked fine in 800*600 and below, but looked like absolute crap in 1024 and above<br />
<br />
My site below
was designed for 800*600, when I made it in percentages, it looked like crap in 1024, so I thought pixels and an 800*600 res was the way to go. I think this is the best starting point.. I dont know too many people with their res set to anything below this <!--content-->I think this depends on the site you're developing and the audience that goes along with it. If you are developing a business site or general information site or something along those lines, maximum accessibility should be your mantra. Those with disabilities, be it sight or hearing, should not be ignored just because "not many people are like that." Complete compatability and accessibility is nigh on impossible, I realize, but that shouldn't stop you from making an effort to achieve it. Text browsers are still in rather widespread use. People that can't see can still browse the web, but it helps if there are cues for the browser that the blind use. This is especially true if you are designing a website that dishes out a lot of textual information. Obviously, if you sell flash animations, then you don't need to cater to text browsers, but hopefully you get my point. <br />
<br />
Personal web sites are a whole other subject. Do whatever you want with your personal web site.<br />
<br />
There are exceptions to this accessibility, as I've already mentioned. One thing, though, is that browser backwards compatability is becoming less of an issue, at least, in my mind. I have not run across any cases where the user really needs to be using old and outdated browsers (like Netscape 4.x). If your employer uses it and you're not allowed to install a better browser, you probably shouldn't be surfing anyway. You're on company time.<!--content-->Originally posted by doogxela <br />
I think this depends on the site you're developing and the audience that goes along with it. If you are developing a business site or general information site or something along those lines, maximum accessibility should be your mantra. Those with disabilities, be it sight or hearing, should not be ignored just because "not many people are like that." <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
here here! :cheers:<!--content-->I don't do it on purpose, but someone with their resolution set to 640x480 could properly view my websites. I just tend to like things small, and neat, and organised instead of randomly spread out everywhere.<!--content-->800x600 is best to start with. Most internet users aren't very smart (proof: how many people are using AOL right now?), so they are still using default resolution and probably dont even know they can change it. Some people are just used to it too, so they don't want to change it.<!--content-->GeoFriend has the right idea - compact design.<br />
<br />
Its the right balance between too much white-space and overcrowding.<!--content-->Originally posted by The GeoFriend <br />
I don't do it on purpose, but someone with their resolution set to 640x480 could properly view my websites. I just tend to like things small, and neat, and organised instead of randomly spread out everywhere. <br />
<br />
hi.. could you post a link to your site that does this.. I just wanted to view an example and noticed your avatar doesn't link to a site<br />
<br />
thanks<!--content-->Click the www button under his post.
<!--content-->Ganon of Evil is right, too. most people arent computer savvy and dont know how to right click properties , settings, screen res... <br />
<br />
i try to make my websites centered in 600 by 800. it looks perfect in 600 by 800 alittle off in 1024 by 764 and just plain SMALL in 400 by 600.<br />
<br />
it does depend on whos looking at your site. for my school project i had to present a website on my school's computer. they had a higher resoultion so i had to make it FULLSCREEN. i'll probably never make my site fullscreen again because some people dont know how to click "Close Window".. lol<!--content-->Originally posted by KWJams <br />
Click the www button under his post. <br />
oh there it is<br />
<br />
lol... I always check the signature<!--content-->
<br />
Want your views.<!--content-->But my way of thinking is to code the main content at 640x480 to avoid scroll bars and allow plenty of room for banner ads later on along the sides.<!--content-->800x600 is safe enough to design for. right around 50% of users seem to be still using this resolution, and as someone recently pointed out here, it's probably out of ignorance re: display settings. either way, as long as this is the most used resolution, it's what i'll design for. even set my monitor at 800x600.<!--content-->We have a believer in the 800*600 church of web design. Let Mass begin.<!--content-->oh yeah! actually, i'm of the mindset that if you use percentage-driven width, and use it well, you'll never have to worry too much about user resolution.<!--content-->hmmmnnn.... <br />
<br />
depends on the layout. I'd prefer to code in percentges and let things spread out accordingly.... but that ideal just doesn't always work. <br />
<br />
So, if I have some super graphically driven layout that I can't see past breaking.... I'll design it to fit an 800x600 screen in a centered table for users of higher rez. <br />
<br />
type these commands directly into the url (without the space in the word javascript):<br />
<br />
javascript: resizeTo(800,600)<br />
javascript: resizeTo(1024,768)<br />
<br />
<br />
and you'll get a feel for what your users are seeing. Personally, I'd love to see everyone use 1024x768. Just tell me this: what is with all these flash designers trying to cram a whole website into a 400X300 popup? They get animation, vector graphics, mp3 sounds, and more... and they try to fit it into an even smaller space that 640x480??!<!--content-->So Transmortha you use % rather than a defined pixel layout?<!--content-->I use 1024*768 designs. But only because most of my work is for an intranet - and I pretty much set the company standard on web stuff.<br />
<br />
I think that the best way would probably be percentages, but it might be hard to achieve sometimes. This works well because the user may not have the browser window at full screen.<br />
<br />
I wonder if it would be possible to use percentages and set a minimum width in pixels?<!--content-->well I always used to design at percentages to allow for all browsers, this however proved a problem as it looked fine in 800*600 and below, but looked like absolute crap in 1024 and above<br />
<br />
My site below
was designed for 800*600, when I made it in percentages, it looked like crap in 1024, so I thought pixels and an 800*600 res was the way to go. I think this is the best starting point.. I dont know too many people with their res set to anything below this <!--content-->I think this depends on the site you're developing and the audience that goes along with it. If you are developing a business site or general information site or something along those lines, maximum accessibility should be your mantra. Those with disabilities, be it sight or hearing, should not be ignored just because "not many people are like that." Complete compatability and accessibility is nigh on impossible, I realize, but that shouldn't stop you from making an effort to achieve it. Text browsers are still in rather widespread use. People that can't see can still browse the web, but it helps if there are cues for the browser that the blind use. This is especially true if you are designing a website that dishes out a lot of textual information. Obviously, if you sell flash animations, then you don't need to cater to text browsers, but hopefully you get my point. <br /><br />
Personal web sites are a whole other subject. Do whatever you want with your personal web site.<br />
<br />
There are exceptions to this accessibility, as I've already mentioned. One thing, though, is that browser backwards compatability is becoming less of an issue, at least, in my mind. I have not run across any cases where the user really needs to be using old and outdated browsers (like Netscape 4.x). If your employer uses it and you're not allowed to install a better browser, you probably shouldn't be surfing anyway. You're on company time.<!--content-->Originally posted by doogxela <br />
I think this depends on the site you're developing and the audience that goes along with it. If you are developing a business site or general information site or something along those lines, maximum accessibility should be your mantra. Those with disabilities, be it sight or hearing, should not be ignored just because "not many people are like that." <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
here here! :cheers:<!--content-->I don't do it on purpose, but someone with their resolution set to 640x480 could properly view my websites. I just tend to like things small, and neat, and organised instead of randomly spread out everywhere.<!--content-->800x600 is best to start with. Most internet users aren't very smart (proof: how many people are using AOL right now?), so they are still using default resolution and probably dont even know they can change it. Some people are just used to it too, so they don't want to change it.<!--content-->GeoFriend has the right idea - compact design.<br />
<br />
Its the right balance between too much white-space and overcrowding.<!--content-->Originally posted by The GeoFriend <br />
I don't do it on purpose, but someone with their resolution set to 640x480 could properly view my websites. I just tend to like things small, and neat, and organised instead of randomly spread out everywhere. <br />
<br />
hi.. could you post a link to your site that does this.. I just wanted to view an example and noticed your avatar doesn't link to a site
<br /><br />
thanks<!--content-->Click the www button under his post.
<!--content-->Ganon of Evil is right, too. most people arent computer savvy and dont know how to right click properties , settings, screen res... <br /><br />
i try to make my websites centered in 600 by 800. it looks perfect in 600 by 800 alittle off in 1024 by 764 and just plain SMALL in 400 by 600.<br />
<br />
it does depend on whos looking at your site. for my school project i had to present a website on my school's computer. they had a higher resoultion so i had to make it FULLSCREEN. i'll probably never make my site fullscreen again because some people dont know how to click "Close Window".. lol<!--content-->Originally posted by KWJams <br />
Click the www button under his post.
<br />oh there it is
<br /><br />
lol... I always check the signature<!--content-->