screen resolution?

[ramon_marett]

Hello
I'm interested to find out what most people think is the average screen resolution out there. I've been asked by a client to make their website bigger. I designed it so that it looks good at 800x600, am I living in the past? Is the average resolution 1024x768 these days?

[Vladdy]

Yes you are living in the past. Nowadays good sites adjust to whatever size the browser window is (which has little to do with the resolution, btw).

[ramon_marett]

I know what you mean, but it's not really one of those sites. Take a look at it at www.odysseyuk.co.uk/rs

It's graphically orientated so I'd have to change the size of the graphics to fit the average screen resolution.

What do you think?

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

wow... that's actually a damn good site. asthetically that is. and I still use a 800x600 monitor.. www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/res.php

800x600 14702904 (44%)
1024x768 13992243 (42%)
1280x1024 1636875 (4%)
1152x864 1027458 (3%)
640x480 764664 (2%)
Unknown 463074 (1%)
1600x1200 228132 (0%)

-so if you go with 1024, it will be used by 42% peeps and look good to peeps with bigger sizes(7% more peeps) or you can go with 800x600 and have it work well for 93% of the people who visit your site, even if it still looks small for peeps with the 1600x1200.

-i have 800x600 i use regularly and my stepdad has a 1600x1200 and a 1024x768. mostly i see the 1600x1200 with peeps who like to watch dvd's on their computer.

[ramon_marett]

Glad you liked the site, it is still in it's early stages you've got to understand.
I think I'll ring the client now and tell him what you said.

"Screen Resolutions" are in that transitional period at the moment (I guess). I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that PCs for Joe Public still get shipped out at 800x600 and most people won't change that.......? In 6 months to a year that'll probably change. In England 95%(ish) of people still have 56k modems so that's another thing you have to take into account when design sites.

[Vladdy]

I can see that this site that is not designed for the web and would look better as a downloadable pdf brochure.

Try increasing your unreadable font and see the design falling apart.

The site is what you make it to be. Just because you decided to put one big image on the home page does not mean that information can not be delivered to any device regardless of it's capabilities...

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

you are such a mean person vladdy. he wants to build a webpage how he pleases, let him. tell him theirs a better way, dont yell at him and say it should be a brochure. u always yell at peeps about compatibility, how about telling them how they can make it compatable? or mayby drop it cause we don't care if 1% of the world cant see it. they just dont matter to the client, now do they? the client gets what they want. if you try to make someone download a pdf instead of just going to www.blah.com, you will lose a large percent of ur interests because people are just that lazy and dont wanna wait to download, then open, the pdf. think about things like this before you post something like the post above.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

note: he didnt ask for a compatability speech. he asked if his IMAGE BASED site would WORK in better as it is or if he changed it to a larger resolution.

[pyro]

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
compatibility...drop it cause we don't careJust because most web developers are still living in the 90's doesn't mean that people who understand the web (such as Vladdy) should not point out the weeknesses with using such practices.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

Originally posted by pyro
Just because most web developers are still living in the 90's doesn't mean that people who understand the web (such as Vladdy) should not point out the weeknesses with using such practices.

well thats all good and dandy. but he stated at the beginning, he's making it for the client. this is what the client asked for, and after making it, i doubt it would be wise for him to tell the guy, oh yeah, you can do it differently if you want to. cause the client will most likely just ignore him or he will try to make him redo the entire thing for free or little money. the client asked for this, and thats what he is delivering. he was asking how to make what he is delivering better. not why he should throw it away and what to replace it with when he threw it away.

note: client = gets what he wants. in your reply's to this, remember that. i'll say it one more time. Client = gets what he wants.

[pyro]

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
but he stated at the beginning, he's making it for the client. this is what the client asked for...
You can not expect the client to know the workings of the web. That is the web developers job. Sometimes that includes education the client a bit... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
...and after making it, i doubt it would be wise for him to tell the guy, oh yeah, you can do it differently if you want to.
No, that probably should have been done before any work began.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

Originally posted by pyro
No, that probably should have been done before any work began.

I agree, but it's to late for that.:rolleyes:

[Vladdy]

What you fail to realize is that while there is "a client" who pays money for the web page to be developed, "the customer" both of you need to please is the web site visitor.
Your "client" sees the web site from his/her computer (most often above average connection and display resolution/color) and he/she is intimately familiar with the site content, which makes him/her believe in the necessity of all kinds of gizmos to make this content attractive. Ability to explain to a person signing the check the difference in content perception by him/her and an average visitor, as well as educate about other issues related to web design is what separates a professional from a novice who just learnt how to use a Dreamweaver. Being a professional also means credibility in the occupational field, which makes others listen to critique and suggestions.
Accessible web design is not just satisfying users with disabilities, which is a law in most civilized countries, but making your content available to search engines and other existing and future technologies which do not have a "resolution".

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

you have a point about disability laws. BUT: his site is navigated graphically and that is how the client wants it, and while their may be better methods, the client will probably tell the man,

"well.. this is my business. and i would like to be able to have a pleasing site and a site for those with older technologies or disabilities, but i'll go with enticing the massess with my nice looking site for my business instead of just being another boring website. i wish to please my customers, even if it means excluding some in the process. the gains outway the losses. what's a lonely radiator salesmen care about 5% loss compared to keeping around an extra 20% of the masses."

again, this isn't some javascript laden website that has IE based code and uses the <font> tag. it is a mostly clean site that just uses embedded images. it's not all that unaccessible. and seeing as the site is already done, i don't think it'd be wise for the man to go back and redo it all over again in a completely different style. the site is truely beautiful and not the worst coded so let's just let it go. the man's question as to resolution has been answered anywayz, and that was the purpose of this thread.

[Vladdy]

Pleasing web site and accessible web site are not exclusive things. Pretty graphics do not help in retaining visitors if there is no content and/or it visitors can not navigate it.
The web site of the original poster presents a big picture without clear and readily available explanation WHAT is it about. The company name and logo are stuck in a corner and do not grab attention. The menu items at the bottom of the picture are in microfonts that are hard to read and also "get lost" compared to the picture. Trying to increase the font size breaks the layout. The product detail pages break even worse when font size is increased.
While the solid model picture sure looks nice, it would help with the sales if product detail pages woudl show the real thing in real setting (with ability to open a big picture.

Contrary to your statement, the web site uses plenty of <font> tags and outdated table layout. Furthermore there are no heading tags, nor keyword meta tags, nor a meaningful title which will result in a poor SE rating (if any).

While, according to your logic, amature web designer may please an ignorant client, the resultant product is inferior.

The correct answer to the thread question is that monitor resolution has little to do with the browser client window size and the web site should be designed so that it can adapt to the user choice of browser size and font size.

You really need to learn the difference between HELPING and PLEASING - your logic calls for giving an alcoholic a bottle just because he asks for it.

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

if whether i eat dinner tonight is based on my giving that alcoholic the bottle or not, guess what? he gets the bottle.

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
if whether i eat dinner tonight is based on my giving that alcoholic the bottle or not, guess what? he gets the bottle.
One day you may learn that ability to "cure" puts you in a higher pay bracket :rolleyes: :D :D :D

[ramon_marett]

Hmmm, seems I sparked up a bit of an argument there. Now first of all, you do do what a client wants and if that means going back and changing the whole thing then that's what you do. Secondly perhaps I shouldn't have put the web address for you all to see because really it's only about 40-50% completed, even that company logo "buried in the corner" is not the one that will be used.
The links at the bottom of the page are small because I don't really want people to use them, they are just there in case the person visiting the site really can't get his/her head around the idea of clicking on a radiator in the room.
The client also has another "typical" website so I had to design one completely different. I've tried to go for something I've not seen before (maybe I've failed looking at the replies). And yes, obviously you will be able to click on one of the small images to get a bigger one and lots more information about that particular radiator.
One other thing, there are not keywords or meta tags or whatever because that's what my IT man sorts out.
One other thing, wasn't the rugby great on Saturday!!

[Sux0rZh@jc0rz]

lol. who won? I missed it :( *tear tear*

One day you may learn that ability to "cure" puts you in a higher pay bracketHmmmm.. I was always under the impression that alcohol rehab centers were the kinda places you VOLUNTEER at.... while it is a noble cause, i dont think volunteer work pays as well as a normal job...
(yes.. it pays in the "heart" and it can look good a resume' and can lead to better jobs.. don't take me wrong here and think i'm saying volunteer work is bad.)

[pyro]

Originally posted by Sux0rZh@jc0rz
Hmmmm.. I was always under the impression that alcohol rehab centers were the kinda places you VOLUNTEER at.... Cripes, you totally missed the point there... :rolleyes:

[Compguy Pete]

The number of 800x600 users is so large you cannot over look them and jump to 1024x768.

Have you considered making the design flexable so it looks good at any resolution?

[Paul Jr]

If you are required, for some unknown, god forsaken reason, to design a site which is not able to be fluid/flexible, again, for some unknown, god forsaken reason, build it for 800*600. If you build for anything higher, 800*600 users are going to have to scroll horizontally. If it works for 800*600, you can almost be guranteed it's going to work for higher -- the site's just going to be a bit smaller for them. Which is a decent trade, if you can't make the site fluid/flexible.


That's my 2 cents...

[ramon_marett]

I agree. I think people are missing the point a bit with graphically oriented websites. My background is in advertising and film, and you know what, a picture tells a thousand words. What I'm saying is you can have one decent picture on the screen without the need for flexible/scrollable/whatever sites - it has to serve it's purpose though. And yes, design an unflexible site for 800x600 and it still will look good on a 1024res site.
That's my two pence.

[Lori9]

I really like the "accessories" page... very catchy idea (drawers opening on click)

Lori9

[Sybs]

The screen resolution thread makes interesting reading - however, is there anyone out there who could provide ideas or a script that could resize a web site depending on the users browser (or resolution) -or is it just a case of producing two sites, one for 800 and one for 1024 and finding some script that will automatically call up the relevant site dependant on the resolution of the user ? I've no idea - but have the same problem as the poster when producing web stuff as to who wants what resolution and the best res. to produce it in. And yes - the client usually has no idea either. Anyone help ?

[Paul Jr]

I nabbed this off JavascriptSource, and modified it a bit. I'm nowhere near a JS guru, so this might not be exactly what you need.


/* Pop this in the <head> section */
<script type="text/javascript">
<!-- Begin
function redirectPage() {
if ((screen.width == 640) && (screen.height == 480))
window.resizeTo(640,480);
else if ((screen.width == 800) && (screen.height == 600))
window.resizeTo(800,600);
else if ((screen.width == 1024) && (screen.height == 768))
window.resizeTo(1024,768);
}
// End -->
</script>


And...

/* then */

<body onload="redirectPage();">


This is pretty much untested...

[pyro]

If I want my window resized, I can do it myself... Better to just make a fluid layout, or a static one that works on different reslutions.

[Paul Jr]

By Pyro
If I want my window resized, I can do it myself... Better to just make a fluid layout, or a static one that works on different reslutions
I realize this, and I completely agree...


Originally posted by Sybs
The screen resolution thread makes interesting reading - however, is there anyone out there who could provide ideas or a script that could resize a web site depending on the users browser (or resolution) -or is it just a case of producing two sites, one for 800 and one for 1024 and finding some script that will automatically call up the relevant site dependant on the resolution of the user ? I've no idea - but have the same problem as the poster when producing web stuff as to who wants what resolution and the best res. to produce it in. And yes - the client usually has no idea either. Anyone help ?

But I posted the script in response to this fellow's post, in which he asked if anyone could provide a script, or any ideas on one that could resize the users' window according to their resolution.


***EDIT***
I do not believe anyone should not have a question answered because the answer is not a very good idea, or, occording to opinion, there is a better solution.


My two cents.

[pyro]

Originally posted by Paul Jr
But I posted the script in response to this fellow's post, in which he asked if anyone could provide a script, or any ideas on one that could resize the users' window according to their resolution. Actually, he did not. He asked for "ideas or a script that could resize a web site depending on the users browser (or resolution)." To me, that would aptly describe a fluid layout, rather than resizing one's browser window.

[Paul Jr]

Ooooh... :o. I must've misread that...

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

[Sybs]

Thanks for the information - I will try this out and let you know if it works. It would be useful if it did ! Thanks again.:)