Screen Resolution... Does Size Matter?

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
beatme101
Registered User
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: The country cold comes from; Canada.
Contact:

Post by beatme101 »

Da P3s7 wrote: Edit to beatme:
Btw with the huge image size....would you imagine a picture 3000 pixels wide and about 2000 in height taken with my nikon coolpix 7.1
It would fit in 3 screens in width and 2 in height... LoL that's a total of 6 screens!!!....


You'd need a mere 4 screens if they were set at 2048*1536 resolution, which is the highest an ATI video card can provide (not that I've seen a monitor that fits it.. But most ATI cards have an interesting feature that allow it to set a higher resolution than the monitor supports, and have the screen scroll when the cursor reaches the edge of the screen, allowing a 'virtual' higher resolution).

I can't help but wonder why you edited your post for that rather than posting new or some such :P

NeoThermic
Security Consultant
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:33 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by NeoThermic »

beatme101 wrote: You'd need a mere 4 screens if they were set at 2048*1536 resolution, which is the highest an ATI video card can provide not that I've seen a monitor that fits it..


A Dell 3007WFP can do 2560x1600...

NeoThermic
NeoThermic.com... a well of information. Ask me for the bit bucket so you can drink its goodness. ||新熱です

beatme101
Registered User
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: The country cold comes from; Canada.
Contact:

Post by beatme101 »

NeoThermic wrote:
beatme101 wrote:You'd need a mere 4 screens if they were set at 2048*1536 resolution, which is the highest an ATI video card can provide not that I've seen a monitor that fits it..


A Dell 3007WFP can do 2560x1600...

NeoThermic


Holy poo poo! I especially did not expect to see one greater than my ATI card can support! Mind buying me one?

SaintOfSka
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:46 am

Post by SaintOfSka »

Dude... I've got a Dell. :wink:

My site's recent usage statistics show screen resolutions of 1024x768 making up most of my visitors, followed by bigger resolutions working up to 1600x... My site is for music fans, so it seems to draw quite an eclectic group technology-wise. I've checked the statistics before and found a small chunk of users in the 800x600 range as well.

It would seem the concensus around here is go for 800x600 minimum, and make the page dimensions fluid when you can. Savvy? :D
Grace and Peace

sonyboy
Registered User
Posts: 2980
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:10 am

Post by sonyboy »

1024x768 with 800x600 in mind :D

btw, I wonder if PHP can detect things like resolution, flash player is installed or not?

beatme101
Registered User
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: The country cold comes from; Canada.
Contact:

Post by beatme101 »

sonyboy wrote: btw, I wonder if PHP can detect things like resolution, flash player is installed or not?


Unfortunately not, although Javascript can detect both of those and set cookies recording such information for php to read later..

rick`
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:09 am
Contact:

Post by rick` »

drathbun wrote: I try to make sites that fit in 800x600, but that are fluid so if someone uses a larger screen it fits. One thing that is often not mentioned is that even if someone has a 1024x768 (or larger) screen they don't run browser windows maximized.
I run at 1280x1024 and have my browser maximized.
It's never felt right having it any other way :-?

But as smithy has said, resolution != browser size. So then enters still having to think about 800x600 (or smaller in case of PDA's and such, although you'd feed diferently to such user agents) on a continual basis.

That said, I still tend to work with an 800 width max. Actually, it's probably around the 750 width. It seems to go down well, and if people run smaller, then I dunno. Generally they still seem to work out ok.

agque
Registered User
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:36 am
Contact:

resolution

Post by agque »

hi guys

I think 1024x768 is quite better. :lol:



anthony

User avatar
Jon~Д&#1078
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:38 am
Location: Scotland.

Post by Jon~Д&#1078 »

I take 1024x768 as the standard.
But a good developer always accomidates for everyone.
Even text browsers.

Which I use from time to time either that or Opera and have it set so it dosnt load images.
That way I can have at least half a dozen windows open and nothing gets slowed down because of all the graphics.

Anyway my advice is if you accomidate for everyone get most of you styling done with CSS and not graphics then it will keep everyone happy.

In the few sites I have done the content has been left aligned and we viewed it on a wide-screen moniter and their was loads of white space.

Wasnt too worried but its something to think about.

Vic D'Elfant
Former Team Member
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: NL, Maastricht
Contact:

Post by Vic D'Elfant »

I've been developing and designing websites for quite a while now, and I personally chose to make all websites fixed-width (about 990px or so), but in such a way that it won't look odd on higher resolutions. For instance, there are fixed-width websites that look horrible when viewed on a higher resolution. I tend to make it so the actual content will be centered and that there's something like a background image that fills up the "white gaps" on the left and right side of the centered content.

I have access to the Google Analytics statistics of a few websites, and the avarage screen resolutions seem to be as follows:
  • 800 x 600: 5.06%
  • 1024 x 768: 47.39%
  • 1280 x 1024: 24.72%
I used to make fluid designs in the past, but the mayor drawback with those was that you could end up with a paragraph of text that's just 2 lines on some insane resolution (/me glares at NeoThermic :mrgreen:) instead of the usual 15 lines on a 1024x768 one. While this isn't really a problem, it still makes your layout look "empty" with lots of whitespace.

Once Internet Explorer finally supports the max-width style attribute without having to use too much workarounds and once that version is used by the avarage internet user, I'll most likely switch to fluid designs and fixed-width content.

With regard to text-browsers... who uses those? I know that they exist and are being used by a few people, but no way a client will be paying me for the time I spend on making their website compatible with text-only browsers. The work just doesn't pay off, in my opinion.

Designing websites will always be the trick of finding the right balance between usability and the nice look you want to give your product.

Vic
midd.ag • DTP, web development & printing
http://www.midd.ag

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

Vic D'Elfant wrote: With regard to text-browsers... who uses those?

The next time I'm browsing the Web on my Palm (not text only, but not ~990px fixed, either) I'm going to remember this discussion (/me glares at Vic).

:mrgreen:

Vic D'Elfant
Former Team Member
Posts: 6203
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: NL, Maastricht
Contact:

Post by Vic D'Elfant »

Hehehe :D

Hrm well.. you have a point there.. Though browsing the web using a Palm causes me claustrofobia anyway :mrgreen:

Vic
midd.ag • DTP, web development & printing
http://www.midd.ag

User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR »

Largely I'll design my sites for 1024x768. That's just a recent decision of mine, as I used to use 800x600. But I also take into consideration my audience. If it's just a personal site or blog, sure, the most "popular" is the way to go. I'm not making any money off of it, I really could care less if someone left because it's too big for their browser window.

But when I design sites that have a business purpose, I will always, always, design them so they can support even that 5% of visitors with 800x600 resolutions.

Usually all of my sites will be a fluid design. However, I do have exceptions. And when I do make a fixed design fit for 1024x768, I will most often make it cut off only a certain part of the site, for example a right sidebar that doesn't include "important" information. However, all the main content will be visible in lower resolutions.

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

MikeR2k6
Registered User
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by MikeR2k6 »

i think 1024 x 768 is best, this is the resolution i use at home :)
but when designing websites, i always use percentage dimensions for tables etc, so its not so bad on the other resolutions

chainreaction2009
Registered User
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:28 am

Post by chainreaction2009 »

Vic D'Elfant wrote: I've been developing and designing websites for quite a while now, and I personally chose to make all websites fixed-width (about 990px or so), but in such a way that it won't look odd on higher resolutions. For instance, there are fixed-width websites that look horrible when viewed on a higher resolution. I tend to make it so the actual content will be centered and that there's something like a background image that fills up the "white gaps" on the left and right side of the centered content.

I have access to the Google Analytics statistics of a few websites, and the avarage screen resolutions seem to be as follows:
  • 800 x 600: 5.06%
  • 1024 x 768: 47.39%
  • 1280 x 1024: 24.72%
I used to make fluid designs in the past, but the mayor drawback with those was that you could end up with a paragraph of text that's just 2 lines on some insane resolution (/me glares at NeoThermic :mrgreen:) instead of the usual 15 lines on a 1024x768 one. While this isn't really a problem, it still makes your layout look "empty" with lots of whitespace.

Once Internet Explorer finally supports the max-width style attribute without having to use too much workarounds and once that version is used by the avarage internet user, I'll most likely switch to fluid designs and fixed-width content.

With regard to text-browsers... who uses those? I know that they exist and are being used by a few people, but no way a client will be paying me for the time I spend on making their website compatible with text-only browsers. The work just doesn't pay off, in my opinion.

Designing websites will always be the trick of finding the right balance between usability and the nice look you want to give your product.

Vic


What an interesting point, I've often found that no matter what resolution I am in, my sites always cater for whatever resolution my users use. I do agree with you.

I use Text browsers in Fedora Core becuase one I find it useful to only look at texts at websites you need to find information for either an assignment or a work report (which is that does in my case) - I get annoyed with the annoying images on some website that I need to get information from, so I happy with convenience of a text browser when doing research purposes.
Leaving New York never easy R.E.M

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”