What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for? I currently work in 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I have heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some people use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
I can see problems with the javascript method:
(1) Not every system has javascript enable (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done though)
I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
PhilG wrote in message ... > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
Just design for all browser sizes, simply by using percentage figures for the width intead of *fixed* pixel sizes, then whatever size window your viewer has they will see your website filling their window, rather than squashed up at 800 pixels wide on a huge monitor.
> What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
None. Or rather, any.
"Resolution", by which I assume you mean screen dimensions in pixels, has nothing at all to do with the dimensions of the browser canvas.
> I currently work in > 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution.
No, only some people work at this "resolution". Perhaps you are missing a 'not' :-)
> I have > heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although,
Why? What is 'safe' about a particular canvas size. My canvas *can* be 3200x1200 (on my development system) or as small as 200x100 (on my telephone), or any number in between this.
> some people > use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
A silly thing to do and unreliable at that. Screen "resolution" does not equal canvas size.
Design for any canvas size.
> I can see problems with the javascript method: > (1) Not every system has javascript enable
Yep. My telephone does not.
> (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done
though)
Not if you use a liquid design. If you go down the road of a different site for different 'relolutions' you will rapidly aproach an infinite number of sites.
> I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
> What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for? I currently work in > 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I have > heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some people > use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
> I can see problems with the javascript method:
> (1) Not every system has javascript enable > (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done though)
> I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
Not really replying to myself but let me see if I have got the gist of this correct.
You do not design to a screen/browser resolution, you let the design do the work, by that I mean fluid design. If you design to a specific resolution then you tie yourself to that size and you will most probably have horizontal scroll bars.
As I read in one of the links, a fluid design is one where the page loads and fills the screen/browser whatever the resolution.
Is that close?
The reason that I asked the original question is that, so far, all my design attempts have been of the fixed variety. I now wish to progress to something that is much more universal and pleasing to the eye!
> What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
Every possible one.
> I currently > work in 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this > resolution.
I'm guessing you dropped a "not" there.
I have heard that the safest option is to design for
> 800X600 although, some people use javascript to detect the screen > resolution and load approriate.
I think you need to understand the difference between "screen resolution" and "browser viewport size."
> I can see problems with the javascript method:
> (1) Not every system has javascript enable
True.
> (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done > though)
That is, as I think you understand, a real hassle. Much better to design a layout that adapts to any viewport size (with the understanding that things will inevitably fall apart a bit if, for example, the viewport size is less than the dimensions of some truly critical image. Any viewer in such a situation knows that a compromise is involved there).
> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for? I currently work > in > > 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I > have > > heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some > people > > use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
> > I can see problems with the javascript method:
> > (1) Not every system has javascript enable > > (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done > though)
> > I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
> Not really replying to myself but let me see if I have got the gist of this > correct.
> You do not design to a screen/browser resolution, you let the design do the > work, by that I mean fluid design. If you design to a specific resolution > then you tie yourself to that size and you will most probably have > horizontal scroll bars.
> As I read in one of the links, a fluid design is one where the page loads > and fills the screen/browser whatever the resolution.
> Is that close?
> The reason that I asked the original question is that, so far, all my design > attempts have been of the fixed variety. I now wish to progress to something > that is much more universal and pleasing to the eye!
"pleasing to the eye" ...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with screen resolution unless you want to get semantically distracted. ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use -- go to display properties/settings and you will see for yourself!! Don't get distracted by the misinformation offered by a few gearheads in this ng!
> ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use -- go to display > properties/settings and you will see for yourself!!
This is only because microsoft, as usual got it wrong. What they really meant to say on that dialog was "screen dimensions in pixels". This is reinforced by the annotation below the slider bar which reads, in my case "1600 by 1200 pixels". Note the term 'pixels'. It does not say 'pixels per inch' or 'pixels per parsec', it says "pixels", which I interpret to mean "pixels per screen"
It is sad that this single microsoft mistake has has lead to a generation of people who don't really know what "resolution" really is.
Resolution is usually expressed as so many things per something. What is your printer resolution? It is probably 600 dots per inch like mine is. That is exact. The printer spurts out 600 dots in an inch, each of them 1/600 inches wide. A peice of 8 inch wide paper is ... 4800 "pixels" wide.
What is the resolution of your screen? Is it 800 pixels per 15 inches or 1275 pixels per 10 feeet (yes, I do have a display that is 10 feeet wide, it is my home theatre projector).
The "resolution" of your screen is most certainly not 800x600, without any units. At the very least it is 800x600 pixels per screen.
Microsoft got it even more wrong in that dialog. Press that Advanced button. You get to choose your DPI. What is this? Dots Per Inch? How the bloody hell do they know how wide in inches my screen is? It might be my telephone. It might be my ten feet wide TV projector. This DPI value is merely a multipication factor the screen drivers use to scale text when they need to convert font points into pixels. Nothing to do with "inches" of "milemetres" or "fathoms".
Regardless of the "resolution" issue: the browser may not be maximixed, mine never is. Even if it is are the borders/scrollbars/office toolbars taken into account? Answer: rarely.
> Don't get distracted by the misinformation offered by a few gearheads in > this ng!
Yes, do get distracted by the information probided by the gearheads in this group. Those gearheads just may be experts in their field. They just may know what they are talking about ;-)
news:3fc47e8a$0$12666$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk... | You do not design to a screen/browser resolution, you let the design do the | work, by that I mean fluid design. If you design to a specific resolution | then you tie yourself to that size and you will most probably have | horizontal scroll bars.
not necessarily, u will only get horizontal scrollbars if u design at a greater resolution than the viewer is using
| As I read in one of the links, a fluid design is one where the page loads | and fills the screen/browser whatever the resolution.
yes
| The reason that I asked the original question is that, so far, all my design | attempts have been of the fixed variety. I now wish to progress to something | that is much more universal and pleasing to the eye!
fixed width can also be pleasing to the eye, if u were to use a fixed width then 800px would be the minimum to use --------------------------------------------------- Hung Diep New Media Designer www.intro-spect.co.uk 0795 6576 319
>> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
> ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use
No, it is not. Screen resolution and browser window size are two different and mostly unrelated things.
Screen size (in pixels) is only one factor of resolution, others are physical (monitor) size and dpi. Browser window size can be anything less than or equal to screen size.
In a desktop environment, subtract GUI elements like the browser toolbar(s) and any sidebars, then you have the canvas size. It will be rather smaller than window size, which may already be rather smaller than screen size.
You cannot predict what the canvas size will be, so trying to design for any one specific size is really a wasted effort.
-- To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
> > ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use -- go to display > > properties/settings and you will see for yourself!!
> This is only because microsoft, as usual got it wrong. What they really > meant to say on that dialog was "screen dimensions in pixels". This is > reinforced by the annotation below the slider bar which reads, in my case > "1600 by 1200 pixels". Note the term 'pixels'. It does not say 'pixels per > inch' or 'pixels per parsec', it says "pixels", which I interpret to mean > "pixels per screen"
> It is sad that this single microsoft mistake has has lead to a generation of > people who don't really know what "resolution" really is.
> Resolution is usually expressed as so many things per something. What is > your printer resolution? It is probably 600 dots per inch like mine is. That > is exact. The printer spurts out 600 dots in an inch, each of them 1/600 > inches wide. A peice of 8 inch wide paper is ... 4800 "pixels" wide.
> What is the resolution of your screen? Is it 800 pixels per 15 inches or > 1275 pixels per 10 feeet (yes, I do have a display that is 10 feeet wide, it > is my home theatre projector).
> The "resolution" of your screen is most certainly not 800x600, without any > units. At the very least it is 800x600 pixels per screen.
> Microsoft got it even more wrong in that dialog. Press that Advanced button. > You get to choose your DPI. What is this? Dots Per Inch? How the bloody > hell do they know how wide in inches my screen is? It might be my telephone. > It might be my ten feet wide TV projector. This DPI value is merely a > multipication factor the screen drivers use to scale text when they need to > convert font points into pixels. Nothing to do with "inches" of "milemetres" > or "fathoms".
> Regardless of the "resolution" issue: the browser may not be maximixed, mine > never is. Even if it is are the borders/scrollbars/office toolbars taken > into account? Answer: rarely.
> > Don't get distracted by the misinformation offered by a few gearheads in > > this ng!
> Yes, do get distracted by the information probided by the gearheads in this > group. Those gearheads just may be experts in their field. They just may > know what they are talking about ;-)
> Cheers > Richard.
poor rf keeps forgetting he vowed never to reply to a posting of mine again ...such a weak guy! ...he even thinks he's an expert. Methinks he's like the "farmer - out standing in his own field" ...certainly not an expert on creating a web presence judging by his regular bloatings here! ...maybe the VB (Victoria Bitter) kicked in again, or Roo kicked him out of bed!
> >> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
> > ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use
> No, it is not. Screen resolution and browser window size are two > different and mostly unrelated things.
> Screen size (in pixels) is only one factor of resolution, others are > physical (monitor) size and dpi. Browser window size can be anything > less than or equal to screen size.
> In a desktop environment, subtract GUI elements like the browser > toolbar(s) and any sidebars, then you have the canvas size. It will be > rather smaller than window size, which may already be rather smaller > than screen size.
> You cannot predict what the canvas size will be, so trying to design for > any one specific size is really a wasted effort.
> --
The other BS artist joins in - how predictable! ...get a like k-whatever!
In message <3fc47665$0$12706$fa0fc...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>, PhilG <p...@aplusdesign.co.uk> writes
>What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for? I currently work in >1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I have >heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some people >use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
>I can see problems with the javascript method:
>(1) Not every system has javascript enable >(2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done though)
>I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
Assuming we're talking about browser window size, I would always make sure that it looked good at 800x600.
People with larger windows can still see it OK; people with smaller windows (in reality, probably not that many) will need to scroll horizontally (maybe).
That, of course, assumes that you are working to a fixed size and cannot, because of your design constraints, work with a 'fluid' design.
Just make sure that the text can be resized by the user.
>> >> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
>> > ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use
>> No, it is not. Screen resolution and browser window size are two >> different and mostly unrelated things.
>> Screen size (in pixels) is only one factor of resolution, others are >> physical (monitor) size and dpi. Browser window size can be anything >> less than or equal to screen size.
>> In a desktop environment, subtract GUI elements like the browser >> toolbar(s) and any sidebars, then you have the canvas size. It will be >> rather smaller than window size, which may already be rather smaller >> than screen size.
>> You cannot predict what the canvas size will be, so trying to design for >> any one specific size is really a wasted effort.
> The other BS artist joins in
What specifically was it I said that is BS?
> ...get a like k-whatever!
Are you suggesting that others should get like me? Why, thank you!
Your Freudian slip is showing, west. ;)
-- To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
> >> >> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
> >> > ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use
> >> No, it is not. Screen resolution and browser window size are two > >> different and mostly unrelated things.
> >> Screen size (in pixels) is only one factor of resolution, others are > >> physical (monitor) size and dpi. Browser window size can be anything > >> less than or equal to screen size.
> >> In a desktop environment, subtract GUI elements like the browser > >> toolbar(s) and any sidebars, then you have the canvas size. It will be > >> rather smaller than window size, which may already be rather smaller > >> than screen size.
> >> You cannot predict what the canvas size will be, so trying to design for > >> any one specific size is really a wasted effort.
> > The other BS artist joins in
> What specifically was it I said that is BS?
> > ...get a like k-whatever!
> Are you suggesting that others should get like me? Why, thank you!
> Your Freudian slip is showing, west. ;)
...k-whatever comes out for air!!! No Freudian slip -- I was suggesting you should correspond with someone like yourself and get out of my face! You and your southern hemisphere comrade are only b-movie, and stuck in a flawed markup. Tell people the truth -- tables work in all browsers and CSS is browser-challenged as well as unable to display some of the simplest requirements of professional web developers. ...now go stick your nose up your ass again!!!
Yes, make the design stretch and resize for any resolution. Its hard to get a design that will work fluidly (is that a word?) - but its worth it. I actually had a designer tell me it couldn't be done. We ended up hiring someone else to complete the job...and it definitely could be done.
--Tina -- http://www.AffordableHOST.com 20% Discount Code: newsgroup We transfer time from your current host! Serving the web since 1997
> > What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for? I currently work > in > > 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I > have > > heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some > people > > use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
> > I can see problems with the javascript method:
> > (1) Not every system has javascript enable > > (2) More than one version of the site has be designed (not much done > though)
> > I was just wondering, as a snapshot, what resolution some you design to?
> Not really replying to myself but let me see if I have got the gist of this > correct.
> You do not design to a screen/browser resolution, you let the design do the > work, by that I mean fluid design. If you design to a specific resolution > then you tie yourself to that size and you will most probably have > horizontal scroll bars.
> As I read in one of the links, a fluid design is one where the page loads > and fills the screen/browser whatever the resolution.
> Is that close?
> The reason that I asked the original question is that, so far, all my design > attempts have been of the fixed variety. I now wish to progress to something > that is much more universal and pleasing to the eye!
In article <3fc47665$0$12706$fa0fc...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>, p...@aplusdesign.co.uk says...
> What is the best/safest screen resolution to design for?
None of them.
> I currently work in > 1280X1024 and I do appreciate that everyone works in this resolution. I have > heard that the safest option is to design for 800X600 although, some people > use javascript to detect the screen resolution and load approriate.
> I was suggesting you should correspond with someone like > yourself and get out of my face!
But it can sometimes be mildly amusing taunting you about your antiquated notions on how the web works. :)
> You and your southern hemisphere comrade are only b-movie, and stuck in a > flawed markup.
There is nothing flawed about my markup - it's rather well-formed, thank you.
> Tell people the truth
[snip irrelevant diatribe]
Um, this doesn't answer the question I asked...
What was it I said about screen resolution/window size/canvas size that is BS? It was all rather factual and is certainly easy enough to see with your own eyes. If you can't figure out how to adjust your own settings, shall I provide you with some detailed instructions? OK
Assuming you're using IE6, use any of the following shortcuts, either alone or in combination. Most should affect the canvas size in some way: CTRL+E (adjust the width of the sidebar as you see fit) CTRL+I CTRL+H ALT+V, then T, then S (or A or L, or G if you have google toolbar) F11 ALT+spacebar, then R, followed by ALT+spacebar, then S, then 1 arrow left followed by several arrow right, then Enter
You could also resize the window by dragging a corner with the mouse if you're more comfortable using a mouse than the keyboard. There are many other changes you could make in the browser, but this should be enough to get my point across.
Next, I'd cover changing other system settings that could affect the browser canvas size, like taskbar (App/Windows, Office, etc.) sizes and/or position, screen size, etc. I'll post these instructions if you need them, too. BTW, I can give you Linux and Mac instructions as well, if need be. Different platforms have different ideas for all these things. For example, maximizing a window on Mac does not give the same result as maximizing a window on other platforms, at least not on OSX. It's pretty weird.
> ...now go stick your nose up your ass again!!!
I don't know why you get so worked up when somebody corrects your mistakes. Are you that insecure?
-- To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
>> ...by the way, screen resolution *is* the term to use -- go to display >> properties/settings and you will see for yourself!!
> Screen resolution is *a* term to use, but it's not entirely useful when it > comes to web design.
> My screen is 1024x768 pixels. How is that useful to you as a web designer?
> It's not. Because my browser canvas area is usually only about 800px wide.
Likewise, my screen size is 1280x1024, but my canvas is usually only about 700px wide. This is the case with most folks that use higher resolutions - more, often smaller windows so they can see lots of them on screen at the same time.
There are very, very few apps I run in a maximized window.
-- To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
> What was it I said about screen resolution/window size/canvas size that > is BS? It was all rather factual and is certainly easy enough to see > with your own eyes. If you can't figure out how to adjust your own > settings, shall I provide you with some detailed instructions? OK
> Assuming you're using IE6, use any of the following shortcuts, either > alone or in combination. Most should affect the canvas size in some way: > CTRL+E (adjust the width of the sidebar as you see fit) > CTRL+I > CTRL+H > ALT+V, then T, then S (or A or L, or G if you have google toolbar) > F11 > ALT+spacebar, then R, followed by > ALT+spacebar, then S, then 1 arrow left followed by several arrow right, > then Enter
> You could also resize the window by dragging a corner with the mouse if > you're more comfortable using a mouse than the keyboard. There are many > other changes you could make in the browser, but this should be enough > to get my point across.
FYI (not that it matters) my workstation has a dual monitor video card, and run two monitors a 17" (set at 800x600) and a 19"(set at 1024x768). I keep things tidy by running maximised windows. I'm happy with this arrangement and couldn't give a toss what you think or do.
> Next, I'd cover changing other system settings that could affect the > browser canvas size, like taskbar (App/Windows, Office, etc.) sizes > and/or position, screen size, etc. I'll post these instructions if you > need them, too. BTW, I can give you Linux and Mac instructions as well, > if need be. Different platforms have different ideas for all these > things. For example, maximizing a window on Mac does not give the same > result as maximizing a window on other platforms, at least not on OSX. > It's pretty weird.
Stop pretending you're a know-all!
> > ...now go stick your nose up your ass again!!!
> I don't know why you get so worked up when somebody corrects your > mistakes.
worked up at k-whatever -- never! ...as the song says "who the f*** is Alice" (or k-whatever)
|
