Size matters ? 3

[pbb]

Hello everyone.
I would really appreciate it if some of you could give me their feedback on the size they decided to adopt for the web pages they design. I used to do all my web graphics/pages at 620 X 440 pixels, but now some of my clients find that the image is too small on their screen. Should I switch to 780 X550 pixels? and if I do, what about the people that view the sites on a 15" monitor/ 800X600 rez ? This is driving me crazy!! Help!
Thanks
Patricia

 

[gollyg]

With the potential variation in monitor resolutions it is nearly impossible to answer that question definitively. The most important part for the web designer is to identify a target audience. If your page is for low-end users (for example often charities will be aiming at lower socio-economic groups) it is sometimes best to assume the technology will be behind - 14 inch monitors running at 640 x 480 (Its also important in these cases to focus on pages that 'degrade gracefully' ie look ok on old browsers.

I also think for most commercial sites 800 x 600 is an acceptable starting point, this has been entry level equipment for a while. But for more of a challenge how about designing flexible page designs - ones that utlitise tables to adjust and look perfect at any screen resolution? These can work well (although there is always the risk of them being viewed on a huge monitor running at very high resolutions!).

I guess there is no ideal solution to the problem, but I think identifying the audience will give you a clue, both to what resolution to design for and for what browser version - another question that should be answered early in the planning phase.

(BTW there was a thread recently about this very topic - I think it was in this forum)

Interested to hear other opinions.

gollyg

 

[tanderso]

Until recently, you really had to design for 640x480 resolutions. However, since only about 1% of the web population uses that resolution now, it is OK to bump it up. Major sites such as cnn.com have started designing for 800x600 earlier this year. Ideally, though, you should make your layout dynamically expandable. Check out

http://www.tortugasurf.com/

as an example. You can shrink the browser down to 640x480 size or up to any size and the layout adapts. This is the best solution.
Sincerely,

Tom Anderson
CEO, Order amid Chaos, Inc.

http://www.oac-design.com

 

[Comtech]

I just put everything in a table, using percentages, not fixed pixel widths, so it resizes dynamically with browser resolution.
At 1024x768 some viewers may have a little trouble reading the text, but using Arial, and keeping it consistent, it's not too bad for those that need glasses. Anyone viewing at 800x600 will see it all with no troubles, although the wrapping of longer text lines messes up the "nice" look, it's still OK. At 640x480, the text becomes fairly large, and works just fine for those that may be visually impared, and probably are using that resolution anyhow.
According to the stats on my page(s), about 33% are still using 640x480, 35% at 800x600, and only about 20% at 1024x768. All remaining are larger or non-standard, such as webTV, or something. It seems a webmaster must still design for the lower resolution(s), but that may matter more on the type of site. If you're catering to beginners, make it work at 640x480, if you're catering to a specialized audience, tailor it to them. Run a good stats program for awhile, then decide. Cheers,
Jim
reboot@pcmech.com

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/

Moderator at

http://www.56k.com

Staff at

http://www.pcmech.com

Windows 9x/ME instructor.
Jim's Modems:

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/modems/

 

[tanderso]

BTW, if you have a lot of content on your site, then using the dynamic sizing probably won't work. This is true, for instance, of cnn.com. If you have so much content that you have to use multiple columns and fit everything perfectly, then you'll have to choose your minimum resolution and design for that. You can still make it possible to expand to higher resolutions, but you'll lose your perfect fit.

My stats across several sites show 640x480 at about 1%, 800x600 at about 50%, 1024x768 at about 40%, 1280x1024 at about 3%, 1600x1280 at about 1%, and other resolutions make up the remainder.
Sincerely,

Tom Anderson
CEO, Order amid Chaos, Inc.

http://www.oac-design.com

 

[ckennerdale]

personally i go for 800 x 600- as this will still lokk respectable on larger resolutions. Caspar Kennerdale
Senior Media Developer

http://www.thetuckshop.com

http://developer.thetuckshop.com

 

[pbb]

Thanks to all of you, for your time, kindness and expertise. Your answers have been most helpful. Thanks! )
One more question : what would be the best stats program I could get and where?
Also, Gollyg, you mention that there has been a thread on that very topic recently. Any idea on how I could get to that thread? (sorry, I just joined tek-tips yesterday)
Thanks again to everyone!
Patricia

 

[Comtech]

I don't know what kind of access you have. If your domain host has cgi or what, but they usually include some kind of stats access. If you're looking for a free one,

http://www.superstats.com

has just about everything you could want. Cheers,
Jim
reboot@pcmech.com

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/

Moderator at

http://www.56k.com

Staff at

http://www.pcmech.com

Windows 9x/ME instructor.
Jim's Modems:

http://members.cnx.net/reboot/modems/

 

[tanderso]

Check free script sites like cgi.resource-index.com or internet.com for CGI stats programs. I prefer ones which dynamically build their own database to the ones that read your server logs so that you can easily get info in real time instead of compiling it, and so you can record info not in the logs. I've built my own stats program on this premise and it works great. Or you can use an external one like Jim suggested. There are several on the market.

There is a search feature at the top of every page in order to search previous threads.
Sincerely,

Tom Anderson
CEO, Order amid Chaos, Inc.

http://www.oac-design.com

 

[pbb]

Thanks again. Jim and Tom, you have been most helpful

Patricia