Printable View
... making sites only 760 pixels wide. Can we all agree it is ok to go with a wider format now? I mean, if a surfer is still using a monitor with 800x600 resolution... fuck him/her! Let them suffer with horizontal scrolling.
If one were to ditch the 760 pixel limit, what would be a good width to go use?
You know i kind of agree with you however, to combat this i usually center my sites in a 90% cell that way it doesnt matter what resolution a surfer is on so long as the sites are low on graphics :)
Regards,
Lee
*bump*
I would love to know what others thought about this.
1024X768 is usually a good bet to go with. This was discuss at one point I think on this forum: http://forums.iwdn.net
It really depends on your customers. I have often looked at this site: http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm - which also helps on the 1024 resolution. I always usually start at the 800 size & then after a few months, I review the stats. Is the majority are over 1024, I change it accordingly
Thanks for the link Corey, that helps a lot.
Glad to have helped. :)
Who would have known that 65% of users were at 1024x768.
Thanks for the info Corey
hmmmmm.... okay call me stupid or dumb but I get confused with all this. I know that the majority of monitors seem set for the higher resolution but how does that alter what size you design your web page at? Isn't that more dependent on what size the browser window is set to?
Most surfers that I hear from do not use a full screen browser size, they generally resize it to the default size which appears to be approx 800 pixels wide.. hence why I design the page to the fixed width for the content, bleeding the background if they go to full size browser window.. but i still design to that fixed width... so what am I missing here?
I mean isn't it just as important to know what the majority of surfers have the browser window at?
just my addled thoughts.
Ian
I think this is a pretty good example here:
http://www.thescreamonline.com/techn...nitor_res.html
Personally I still design for the 800 browser for the most part - there are a few sites that I do up it to 1024. I think it is the control part actually in me :) - I like to maintain a little control (well a lot actually)
Usually when you buy a new computer - a new monitor is not needed since the avergae lifespan seems to be about 60,000-80,000 hours of use. I would hope though now that people with a 3.8G processor and 2G of ram would still not be using that monitor they had eight years ago
You know I have a 19" flat screen plasma display and I never have the browser window at full resolution 1280x1024. I do what you said, I have the windows downsized. I like a big display though because you can have a lot of windows open and toggle between them easily.:baby:Quote:
Originally posted by gaystoryman
Most surfers that I hear from do not use a full screen browser size, they generally resize it to the default size which appears to be approx 800 pixels wide..
Here's some stats from OneStats.com:
The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:
1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%
I sure wouldn't mind making 'em wider. And Xstr8guy, I almost orgasmed when you said 760, I've been doing 720 for over a year now ... gosh another whole 40 pixels.
Dzinerbear
Using those stats, almost 73% use something over 1024 x 768 - which is even higher / better.
( I usually use 770 actually - maybe another little squirt Dzinerbear :P ?)
I usually set my left margin to zero and use 760px. I don't think rtmargin is supported in some browsers, otherwise I would kill to use 770px!
Are you using CSS to help you determine the left & right margin? If so, it seems to be supported by most browsers: http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/cs...key/margin.htm
I usually use: http://www.corecss.com/properties/full-chart.php but it seems their bandwidth has been exceeded.
I must admit that I don't understand css very well. I've only ever messed with css that was included with templates. If values aren't already there, I don't have a clue how to add them.
Oh man, you've got to get into CSS, the shit you can do is amazing. It makes so much of what I do so much easier.
db
Ah baby steps with CSS :) I first started using CSS with tables, applying certain formatting to them. And then I started something like www.dryheatresorts.com - using more divs. It can be pretty fun. Sort of like when you started using tables...
But for the most part - you can just put into your :
To get all four margins to have 0 pixels.Code:
And with the exception of a few tables - www.loudvoicesystem.com - just because I did not have anough time to figure everything out.
But once you start to use the external style sheet in the
It makes changes everything so easy, from the background to the font size, color, etc. And you can create the DIV & place them in this table as well. So if something needs to be changed - one simple page - similar to a file include. But it is all about design, not content. For example, I have to change the logo in the upper left. Of course changing that is easy - renaming the file. But in the CSS I have:Code:
So if my logo is not the same size, I can easily change it in this one file. And it won't screw anything else up fortunately.Code:div.logo
{
width:316px;
height:100px;
float:left;
background-image: url("/images/voice.jpg");
background-repeat: no-repeat
}
The bitch about CSS is that Internet Explorer accepts (and always has accepted) sloppy code. So if you didn't quite get it right, but you were in the ballpark, IE would do what you wanted. Other Mozilla-based browsers like FireFox are compliant with CSS standards and if you mess up they don't fix or interpret the code.
A while back I couldn't figure out why something looking alright in IE but Firefox didn't follow my CSS. After googling and some digging I discovered it was beause CSS standards don't allow you to use an integer (number) in the class name, so my .text12 class was a no-no. But Microsoft often doesn't give a fig about standards (unless they are theirs) and what ends up happening is the public or users think that these other browsers are problematic when really its IE that's the problem.
Cheers
Dzinerbear
I have a buddy in Canada that I rely on when I really need some help. He has helped me with a few layouts & from that I have been able to change a few things around etc.
True IE assumes to know what you think you meant, which can be a good thing. The thing I never could figure out though why do developers code for the other browser inasmuch as IE since most people still use IE. I understand that compliancy is the key - took me a day before I realized that little code
was really important. A few friends use strict, but I would rather stay loose - maybe for a variety of reasons LOLCode:"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
You might want to change your tactics. Recent stats show that IE has slipped from 94% or users to 89%, while it's only 5 percentage points those are sill huge numbers. With the popularity on Firefox on the rise, you might find your sites falling apart in other browsers that are gaining popularity.
Don't make the mistake Netscape did in thinking that because they were on top they were always going to be there. If we've learned anything from the Internet it's this: today's Google can be tomorrow's "what's a google?"
Cheers
Dzinerbear
Hm, but is it the users using IE or all those developers? :)