I'm watching CBS's presentation about their new web-only tv channel, and their new page is built for 1024x768 screens. MSNBC's page is built for that resolution too.
So if the big guys are doing it, I wonder if it's time for us to design that way, granted theirs are content portals but still
Sites should always be "liquid", auto-adjust to whatever size window the user prefers (try mine :honest: )
- all the way up from 640x480 to 1600x1200, and everything in between, reforming as you drag!
That requirement doesn't fit too well with the "regular" tour-sites, with their tight paintshop-collages.
They usually just sit as small cluttered images in the middle of an otherwise empty screen...
I still design for the 800X600 resolution, but
my page designs are usually simple and consist
of table layouts. I usually have one column that
can expand in width as the window expands
on the surfers screen, without messing up my
page layout too much.
i think that's a big resolution and most webmasters, design on 800x600
I don't make anything smaller than 1024x768 anymore. It's 2005 people!
Jim
I have to admit wherever possible i try to keep page sizes at a maximum width of 720 pixels, to me, that allows for most browser sizes to have a relatively small amount of space either side of the page.
On some sites we do however design them to make sure they get 'liquified' (i like that term hahaha) so they fit to the browser width where ever possible.
Regards,
Lee
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks