Page size

[Richard Wayne Garganta]

Mike Coombes wrote:
> Richard Wayne Garganta wrote
>> For what is worth, the people using less than 1024 X 768 now is
>> minuscule. They are using this or higher.
>
> I have to differ on this one. Depending on the site and it's potential
> audience, the percentage using lower resolution is significant. Art and
> architectural based sites tend to have users on hi-res monitors.
> Business visitors often 1024 and below, and there's still a measurable
> percentage using 800 x 600.
>
> I made the mistake a while back of producing a 900 wide site, and got
> complaints. Until that small percentage of 800 x 600 users dies, we
> sadly have to cater for them or use fluid layouts.

Ah - the dilemma we are in! Try viewing fluid layouts on the newer
higher resolutions and you will not like what you see. Text lines too
long - graphics spread out too far, columns overextended. The reality
is the safest method now is fixed widths to avoid this over expansion of
width.
People have already mentioned the numbers of 800 by 600 and it is not
over 15% with the rest being 1024 by 768 or higher. Every one I know
that has bought monitors the last 2 months has gotten resolutions higher
than 1024 by 768. The reality is a site designed for fixed 800 by 600
or totally liquid layout can look disastrous on the equal or greater
number that have higher resolutions. I don't know how much tech stuff
you read - but if you do the message is clear - program for fixed 1024
by 768. They won't over expand in higher resolutions and they don't
look the size of business cards on higher resolutions either. If you are
going fluid - be very careful what column you have expand. The text
lines can be unsatisfactorily long on the newer monitors.
Oh, that proper integration of the CSS max-width and max-height would
only become a reality!!!

[Nancy O]

<Clearly you haven't seen 800 by 600 on newer wide high resolution
monitors>

You're resorting to poor assumptions now.

<the sites look like a business card.>

And sites built for cell phone users look like postage stamps. So your
point is....

I don't mean to be contentious, I just happen to think it's easier for users
with large displays to make adjustments at their end to make a small site
look bigger. But it's next to impossible to fit a wide site into a small
viewport. If user A with an 800 size screen lands on a page built for 1280
users, they're going to make a hasty retreat and never come back. But if
user B with a 1280 display sees a little more white space on the screen,
it's not a total deal buster.

--Nancy

[Richard Wayne Garganta]

Nancy O wrote:
> <Clearly you haven't seen 800 by 600 on newer wide high resolution
> monitors>
>
> You're resorting to poor assumptions now.
>
> <the sites look like a business card.>
>
> And sites built for cell phone users look like postage stamps. So your
> point is....
>
> I don't mean to be contentious, I just happen to think it's easier for users
> with large displays to make adjustments at their end to make a small site
> look bigger. But it's next to impossible to fit a wide site into a small
> viewport. If user A with an 800 size screen lands on a page built for 1280
> users, they're going to make a hasty retreat and never come back. But if
> user B with a 1280 display sees a little more white space on the screen,
> it's not a total deal buster.
>
> --Nancy
>
>
I will leave your leaps in logic to make a point alone.
Within a year - you will change your view.

[Mike Coombes]

Richard Wayne Garganta wrote:
> I will leave your leaps in logic to make a point alone.
> Within a year - you will change your view.

Plenty can change in a year, but for now I'm agreeing with Nancy. Yes, I
read the net press, and i read a lot of conflicting stuff. I use the
barometer that works for me - if a client says to me "Hey, what's with
the tiny site?" I'll work to a larger resolution. in the meantime I'll
work to ensure that 100% of my clients' visitors see the full site, not
just the percentage that have new monitors.

I think we'd all prefer to be designing for 1024+ widths, but we have to
be pragmatic.

[Richard Wayne Garganta]

Mike Coombes wrote:
> Richard Wayne Garganta wrote:
>> I will leave your leaps in logic to make a point alone.
>> Within a year - you will change your view.
>
> Plenty can change in a year, but for now I'm agreeing with Nancy. Yes, I
> read the net press, and i read a lot of conflicting stuff. I use the
> barometer that works for me - if a client says to me "Hey, what's with
> the tiny site?" I'll work to a larger resolution. in the meantime I'll
> work to ensure that 100% of my clients' visitors see the full site, not
> just the percentage that have new monitors.
>
> I think we'd all prefer to be designing for 1024+ widths, but we have to
> be pragmatic.

That's fine, but the 800 by 600 viewers I know of think nothing of small
amounts of left to right scrolling. To them it is a part of normal
computer usage.
I recently changed a clients resolution to 1024 and one of his first
comments was, "Hey I don't have to scroll left to right anymore!"
I think the overwhelming majority are still at 800 by 600 because they
do not know how to change their resolution. If they can support 800 by
600, they almost certainly can go higher - no one ever showed them how
to change it. And with the ability to change font size now in all newer
browsers, there is really no reason for anyone to remain at 800 by 600.
And yes, there is some conflicting views on this - but we all know where
it is going. The explosion of laptop usage and higher resolutions is
happening MUCH faster than I thought.
I was so proud of an 800 by 600 I set up recently I did a demo of it at
someone's house a few weeks ago that had a new monitor. When I saw how
it looked I was embarrassed.
I now program for a fixed width to fit into 1024 with no left to right
scrolling. Higher resolutions see borders, but it isn't ridiculous,
lower resolutions have to scroll a little depending on content which
they are used to doing anyway.
I think the excessive waste of screen real estate that I see now is
absurd. I see blank borders that are bigger than the site itself.
I might add the Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
they design a site that looks good at both resolutions - they do have a
"wasted" column at the right but they make good graphical use of it so
it works for that design.

[Nancy O]

<Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
they design a site that looks good at both resolutions>

For those who don't know Western Civilization makes Style Master CSS editor
http://tinyurl.com/2rgvsq.

I've said this in prior posts but I'll repeat myself. The best practical
solution to this whole Page Size debate would be to create one site with
multiple layout options (aka stylesheets for print, hand held devices,
low/med/high res output). Problem is you can't do it in NOF's table-based
world. But it's very easy to do with html & relative CSS styled divs.

One CSS property variable for each external stylesheet is all it takes:
body {width: Npx;} where N= screen size.

--Nancy

[Richard Wayne Garganta]

Nancy O wrote:
> <Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
> they design a site that looks good at both resolutions>
>
> For those who don't know Western Civilization makes Style Master CSS editor
> http://tinyurl.com/2rgvsq.
>
> I've said this in prior posts but I'll repeat myself. The best practical
> solution to this whole Page Size debate would be to create one site with
> multiple layout options (aka stylesheets for print, hand held devices,
> low/med/high res output). Problem is you can't do it in NOF's table-based
> world. But it's very easy to do with html & relative CSS styled divs.
>
> One CSS property variable for each external stylesheet is all it takes:
> body {width: Npx;} where N= screen size.
>
> --Nancy
>
>

Yes, but then your pages will not validate.

[Nancy O]

<Yes, but then your pages will not validate.>

Rubbish

--Nancy

"Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f3232a$ftd1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> Nancy O wrote:
> > <Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
> > they design a site that looks good at both resolutions>
> >
> > For those who don't know Western Civilization makes Style Master CSS
editor
> > http://tinyurl.com/2rgvsq.
> >
> > I've said this in prior posts but I'll repeat myself. The best
practical
> > solution to this whole Page Size debate would be to create one site with
> > multiple layout options (aka stylesheets for print, hand held devices,
> > low/med/high res output). Problem is you can't do it in NOF's
table-based
> > world. But it's very easy to do with html & relative CSS styled divs.
> >
> > One CSS property variable for each external stylesheet is all it takes:
> > body {width: Npx;} where N= screen size.
> >
> > --Nancy
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but then your pages will not validate.

[Richard Wayne Garganta]

Nancy O wrote:
> <Yes, but then your pages will not validate.>
>
> Rubbish
>
> --Nancy
>
> "Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:f3232a$ftd1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>> Nancy O wrote:
>>> <Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
>>> they design a site that looks good at both resolutions>
>>>
>>> For those who don't know Western Civilization makes Style Master CSS
> editor
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rgvsq.
>>>
>>> I've said this in prior posts but I'll repeat myself. The best
> practical
>>> solution to this whole Page Size debate would be to create one site with
>>> multiple layout options (aka stylesheets for print, hand held devices,
>>> low/med/high res output). Problem is you can't do it in NOF's
> table-based
>>> world. But it's very easy to do with html & relative CSS styled divs.
>>>
>>> One CSS property variable for each external stylesheet is all it takes:
>>> body {width: Npx;} where N= screen size.
>>>
>>> --Nancy
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, but then your pages will not validate.
>
>
My mistake - I thought you were mentioning the workaround I have seen
where a javascript equation [size sniffer] is put into the CSS selector.
Yes, your method will work but there is the complications of having to
screen sniff before one knows what to put into the selector. Any
suggestions on getting all resolution info and then selecting the CSS
page to use?

[Nancy O]

Not necessarily, here is a crude example of what I mean:
http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/variable_width.html

This same approach could be used to offer users different stylesheets
variable text size, fonts, colors, background images, etc... Lots of
possibilities with CSS.

--Nancy




"Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f32a6g$ftd3@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> Nancy O wrote:
> > <Yes, but then your pages will not validate.>
> >
> > Rubbish
> >
> > --Nancy
> >
> > "Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:f3232a$ftd1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> >> Nancy O wrote:
> >>> <Western Civilization website has a good tutorial and
> >>> they design a site that looks good at both resolutions>
> >>>
> >>> For those who don't know Western Civilization makes Style Master CSS
> > editor
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2rgvsq.
> >>>
> >>> I've said this in prior posts but I'll repeat myself. The best
> > practical
> >>> solution to this whole Page Size debate would be to create one site
with
> >>> multiple layout options (aka stylesheets for print, hand held devices,
> >>> low/med/high res output). Problem is you can't do it in NOF's
> > table-based
> >>> world. But it's very easy to do with html & relative CSS styled divs.
> >>>
> >>> One CSS property variable for each external stylesheet is all it
takes:
> >>> body {width: Npx;} where N= screen size.
> >>>
> >>> --Nancy
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, but then your pages will not validate.
> >
> >
> My mistake - I thought you were mentioning the workaround I have seen
> where a javascript equation [size sniffer] is put into the CSS selector.
> Yes, your method will work but there is the complications of having to
> screen sniff before one knows what to put into the selector. Any
> suggestions on getting all resolution info and then selecting the CSS
> page to use?