What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?


--
Friendly_Lola

'Dog Training' (http://www.dogflu.ca)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly_Lola's Profile: http://www.highdots.com/forums/m149
View this thread: http://www.highdots.com/forums/t189309

Friendly_Lola wrote:

>
What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.
>
For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I've learned to optimize for * X *.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

--
Kim André Akerø
- kimandre@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)

Friendly_Lola <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrites:

What Screen Resolution do You use?

Why do you need to know?

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

Either none of them or all of them, depending on your viewpoint.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?

err. 3000x1600

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Friendly_Lola <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?

80x25
160x160
768x1024
864x1152
1024x1280
900x1440

Not all at the same time, of course...

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

See http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/des...ml#screen-size
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance."

In article <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>, Friendly_Lola writes:

>What Screen Resolution do You use?

>1280 X 1024 Wow!

I'm not sure what's so impressive about 1280 by 1024. I've been running
this way over a decade.

>1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)

I know people who had 1600 by 1200 four years back, it's hardly new.

>For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I don't. I figure that the user will have set their normal font size
to whatever's readable for them with whatever resolution they use.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Visualize whirled peas!

In article <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>,
Friendly_Lola <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrote:

>What Screen Resolution do You use?

Does it matter? I use different resolutions on different computers.

>For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

Any of them. Generally I try to make sure things are still useful at
narrow widths, so I never have any graphics wider than 600 pixels.

-A

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?

3200 x 1200 or 208 x 208

I design "blog pages" around a typical image max dimension of 640px for
"snapshots". Bigger if the image requires it. I don't regard a usable
thumbnail as anything under 200px longest.

For text and layout issues, design flexibly. There's just no reason to
restrict a design to a single screen or window size.

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.
>
For what resolution you optimize your web pages?
>
>

For all that you know I could fill up every one of my eight PCI slots
with a graphics card supplying 3200x2400 creating a screen size that is
a bit more than 'Wow!'. I could arrange them in any number of different
aspect ratios from 8:1 to 1:10. (It would cost a fortune though) The web
doesn't have to sit on specific screen resolutions or sizes.

--
| Brendan Gillatt |
| brendan {at} brendan \removethis// gillatt {dot} co {dot} uk |
| http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk |
| PGP Key: pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6E265E61|

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.

I use 800x600. Higher resolutions require that I resize icons, icon
labels, etc to be readable by my old eyes.

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I don't make any assumption about the resolutions used by visitors to my
Web pages. I hope that someone can even view my pages via a cellphone.

According to W3Schools (see
<http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>), 17% of visitors
to their site still use 800x600. Well over half use 1024 X 768, and 19%
use higher resolutions. Of course, these statistics are biased by the
audience for that Web site. Since that audience is primarily interested
in Web page development, the 17% using 800x600 is somewhat significant.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

"Friendly_Lola" <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrote
in message news:Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...

>
What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.
>
For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I use 1024x768 & 800x600 normally (My secondary monitor is only 15")

I optomize for all res... sometimes even 640x480 (Although I normally expect
people to be using 800x600 and I dont take mobiles into consideration
because Im nasty like that... I make seperate wap pages which are text-only
and limited formatting :-P

Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:43:23 -0500 from Friendly_Lola
<Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>:

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

That's like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Even asking the question is wrong, and betrays a complete
misunderstanding of the World Wide Web.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

"Friendly_Lola" <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrote
in message news:Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...

>
What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.
>
For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I use various screen resolutions to different ends.
1024 X 768 for web development & Surfing.
1024 X 768 and up is the current optimisation for .BIZ web pages
800 X 600 and up is the current optimisation for .COM web pages
1600 X 1200 for software development
800 X 600 minimum screen size is the current optimisation for my software

Web development resolution is best about 125% of targeted minimum screen
size for the page - to allow visibility of both full page width and
navigational structure. Software development resolution is best above 200%
of targeted minimum screen size to allow visibility of full form or window
width plus project manager, properties window, object toolbar and selected
code windows. Visual Hypertext packages will work best with enough room for
object toolbars, navigation window, and full page width - about 150% of
targeted minimum screen size for the page if they are any good, and 200%+ if
the generated mark-up is unreliable or non-compliant.

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:43:23 -0500, Friendly_Lola
<Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrote:

>What Screen Resolution do You use?
>800 X 600
>1024 X 768
>1280 X 1024 Wow!
>1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)

All of the first three plus 640x480 on occasion/

>For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

If my page won't work equally well at all resolutions my page is a
failure.

Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950 wrote:

1024 X 768 and up is the current optimisation for .BIZ web pages
800 X 600 and up is the current optimisation for .COM web pages

Why would the top-level domain of a site have anything to do with what
window width the site should be "optimized" for? And what width is
right for .INFO, .NAME, .ORG, or .EDU pages?

--
Dan

In article <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>,
Friendly_Lola <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>
wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?

1680x1050, and my extension monitor is 1920x1200, but unless looking at
a subway map, I never let my browser have all that area. The largest of
my PDAs is 640x480, and phone is around 208x176. A web page needs to
work reasonably well on all those sizes.

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

As long as your pages can be read on any size without horizontal
scrolling, I don't know that it matters a whole lot which size works
best. Unless your pages relate to some topic where you get a lot of
traffic from people using an unusual size display. For instance, if your
pages would be attractive to cell phone users or PDA owners, you might
want to make smaller resolutions work especially well.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Dan wrote:

Why would the top-level domain of a site have anything to do with what
window width the site should be "optimized" for?

Must be 2000 x 1000 for .eu, as they're all metric

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:23:19 +1000, "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <number@fieldcraft.bizwrote:

>1024 X 768 and up is the current optimisation for .BIZ web pages
>800 X 600 and up is the current optimisation for .COM web pages

Quite apart from the intrinsic dottiness of such statements, do you
actually have any idea why windowing GUIs were invented?

(Hint: my current browser window size is 855 x 909).

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

My graphics card and screen can't handle resolutions higher than
1024x768 so this is the resolution that i use to work and create or
view webpages with.
Public service sites ed are optimized for 800x600 since most visitors
are people with systems running Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP with
128MB RAM.
My personal website is optimized for 1024x768px.

It all depends on the visitors of a website.

On 2006-09-15, Friendly_Lola wrote:

>
What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.

1280 x 960

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

Optimizing for any particular resolution is impossible.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Dan" <dan@tobias.namewrote in message
news:1158377735.146468.86640@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...

>
Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950 wrote:

>
Why would the top-level domain of a site have anything to do with what
window width the site should be "optimized" for? And what width is
right for .INFO, .NAME, .ORG, or .EDU pages?

Just the awful truth about the way I've done things. No rhyme or reason to
it; I promise!

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.comwrote in message
news:1158401112.337067.111640@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

>
Dan wrote:
>

>
Must be 2000 x 1000 for .eu, as they're all metric
>

LOL :^D

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nlwrote in message
news:nijng2dbatf89quegh9rjejfj6l006td8u@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:23:19 +1000, "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <number@fieldcraft.bizwrote:
>

>
Quite apart from the intrinsic dottiness of such statements, do you
actually have any idea why windowing GUIs were invented?
>
(Hint: my current browser window size is 855 x 909).

But don't you just love the way history is dotted with dottiness, my dotty
design flaws included...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

Friendly_Lola <Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.auwrites:

What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)

What's so hard to imagine? It's a screen like any other, only
the fonts are smoother. I increased font size, icon size, etc.,
so it works just as well as, e.g., 1280x1024, only prettier :)

So, 1600x1200 at home and 1600x1200+1440x1050 at work.

For what resolution you optimize your web pages?

I SO hate the word "optimize". It's usually used to mean "designed
only for ... and I don't give ... about the rest". ... </rant>

There is no way to control exactly how pages are displayed, since the
browser is under the control of the user. They can change fonts, font
sizes, even colors, and if your page is well designed, it still works.

I'd say decide up front whether it should work on extremely small
displays (mobile phones, etc). If not, pick a minimum width, e.g.,
640px, and make sure everything works from that size and up. 800px
is an absolute minimum (my browser is typically only about that wide
anyway).

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.
>
For what resolution you optimize your web pages?
>
>

Lola,

800 X 600 on one system, 1024 X 768 on another, but I don't always have
the browser window full-screen, so it could be smaller.

I try to avoid horizontal scroll bars at 640 X 480. To allow for
framing, that means images no wider than 500 pixels. Of course I make
exceptions depending on the content (there's a panorama photo on one
page that is 2848px wide).

For more on this and other common design issues, see
http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/index.html. It's free and no
one will try to sell you anything...

Chris Beall

Friendly_Lola wrote:

What Screen Resolution do You use?
800 X 600
1024 X 768
1280 X 1024 Wow!
1600 X 1200 (i can't imagine this)
I use 1024 X 768.

I read most of the posts in this thread and didn't
see the part I wanted answered (I'm asking,
retorically, not pronouncing).

If you use CSS positioning, which is interesting stuff and all
the rage right now, it seems you have to use absolute pixel
offsets......screen percentage offsets workn in Firefox but
not in Internet Deplorer.

And left: 120px; means one thing at 800x600
and another at 1280 X 1024

Perhaps that's why so many sites that use absolute and relative
css positioning hard-code the graphics display to 800x600, so
it shows up in the middle of high resolution screen.

Also, even without css positioning, if you let the browser
position everything, and code as generically as possible,
you still get wildly different looks, between 800 wide and 1024
wide, due to image widths (a 500 pixel wide image looks small
at one display and large at another).

Seems like there ought to be a more general and powerful
way to handle this...........if the client automatically informed the
server what the local screen resolution was, layouts could be
more dynamically handled on the server.

Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com wrote:

Friendly_Lola wrote:

>
I read most of the posts in this thread and didn't
see the part I wanted answered (I'm asking,
retorically, not pronouncing).
>
If you use CSS positioning, which is interesting stuff and all
the rage right now, it seems you have to use absolute pixel
offsets......screen percentage offsets workn in Firefox but
not in Internet Deplorer.

>

You don't really, but it depends on what you want.

And left: 120px; means one thing at 800x600
and another at 1280 X 1024
>
Perhaps that's why so many sites that use absolute and relative
css positioning hard-code the graphics display to 800x600, so
it shows up in the middle of high resolution screen.
>
Also, even without css positioning, if you let the browser
position everything, and code as generically as possible,
you still get wildly different looks, between 800 wide and 1024
wide, due to image widths (a 500 pixel wide image looks small
at one display and large at another).

Yeah, so?.

Seems like there ought to be a more general and powerful
way to handle this...........if the client automatically informed the
server what the local screen resolution was, layouts could be
more dynamically handled on the server.

Yeah, but what if they don't use a screen.

--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:48:02 +1000, "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <number@fieldcraft.bizwrote:

>"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nlwrote in message
>news:nijng2dbatf89quegh9rjejfj6l006td8u@4ax.com.. .

>
>But don't you just love the way history is dotted with dottiness, my dotty
>design flaws included...

OK, the way you phrased it, I thought you were laying it down as *the*
standard to follow - I didn't realise you meant it only as a personal
preference.

But still: have you even considered that the original purpose of
windowing GUIs was to allow the user to have a number of windows open
next to one another? And that, taking this into account, the prevalent
screen size is pretty much irrelevant?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On 16 Sep 2006 10:46:05 -0700, "Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com"
<Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.comwrote:

>If you use CSS positioning, which is interesting stuff and all
>the rage right now, it seems you have to use absolute pixel
>offsets......screen percentage offsets workn in Firefox but
>not in Internet Deplorer.
>
>And left: 120px; means one thing at 800x600
>and another at 1280 X 1024

Indeed. And I'm afraid that CSS positioning is threatening to become the
next curse of the web. I only use it in a few special cases, and then
for positioning elements within a section of a page, rather than the
page as a whole.

>Perhaps that's why so many sites that use absolute and relative
>css positioning hard-code the graphics display to 800x600, so
>it shows up in the middle of high resolution screen.
>
>Also, even without css positioning, if you let the browser
>position everything, and code as generically as possible,
>you still get wildly different looks, between 800 wide and 1024
>wide, due to image widths (a 500 pixel wide image looks small
>at one display and large at another).
>
>Seems like there ought to be a more general and powerful
>way to handle this...........if the client automatically informed the
>server what the local screen resolution was, layouts could be
>more dynamically handled on the server.

It's true that images are something of an issue. I knocked up an
experimental page a few years ago - I don't know if this helps at all:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html

And don't forget that it's window size that counts, not screen
resolution.

Oh, and this was another experiment which is somewhat relevant to the
discussion:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/layout6.html

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nlwrote in message
news:tmspg2l2bnsh9svvkhrt6lli2guo1377m4@4ax.com...

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:48:02 +1000, "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <number@fieldcraft.bizwrote:
>

dotty

>
OK, the way you phrased it, I thought you were laying it down as *the*
standard to follow - I didn't realise you meant it only as a personal
preference.

That is a bad habit of mine - laying down my opinions as if they were the
Law of God. :^P

>
But still: have you even considered that the original purpose of
windowing GUIs was to allow the user to have a number of windows open
next to one another? And that, taking this into account, the prevalent
screen size is pretty much irrelevant?

This is why I go for the larger screen size in development - I really need
to compare code windows sometimes. Never tried it web surfing, but I'd
imagine many would find it handy. I think it possible that prevalent screen
size could become relevant when fixed-size features such as certain graphics
and navigation panels are thrown in - or maybe I just like to get out of
design mode overload when I am surfing....

If I understand your viewpoint, optimising to allow minimum practical
viewing makes things better for people tiling their windows side by side. In
this case, should excess toolbar/menu items go off the page as width becomes
too small, like they do in the browser interfaces?

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the number@fieldcraft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz

JRS: In article <MPG.1f74fcc1bd2ea33c98a6f8@news.individual.net> , dated
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:09:44 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.auth
oring.html, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fmposted :

>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:43:23 -0500 from Friendly_Lola
><Friendly_Lola.2e6o5z@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au>:

>
>That's like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
>
>Even asking the question is wrong, and betrays a complete
>misunderstanding of the World Wide Web.

Not entirely; the OP wrote "optimize", not "design". A suitable answer,
for many types of page, could be "anything 640*480 or higher, when the
font size is normal".

My composing-viewing window is by default 640*(0.9*screen height).

The sort of stuff I write cannot be optimum on much narrower displays,
though it can be usable; anyone finding it on a 'phone screen will want
to read it on a computer screen.


In fact, I see no rational objection to optimising for the commonest
screen size, as long as the page remains satisfactory at other sizes.


For those paid to do page design, the best answers will generally be "To
the resolution used by whoever is paying" or "To the resolution of
whoever might place future orders".

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

Food expiry ambiguities: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/date2k-3.htm#Food>

Stephen Poley wrote:

Indeed. And I'm afraid that CSS positioning is threatening to become the
next curse of the web. I only use it in a few special cases, and then
for positioning elements within a section of a page, rather than the
page as a whole.

Interesting websites (below). REpositioning as a curse.
Once again it is Microsoft screwing up the works. If CSS
positioning was uniformly supported, and if IE supported
percentage offsets as well as hard-coded pixel counts,
then it would be a great boon, rather than a curse.

I play with css position a lot. The ability to move
and change anything and everything is dynamite.
This more like a model-view-controller paradigm,
more so than static and hard-to-read
nested tables. The reason it is starting to
look like a curse, is Microsoft's habit of hard-coding
incompatibility. The real curse is Microsoft.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/layout6.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:18:41 +1000, "Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace
number with 11950" <number@fieldcraft.bizwrote:

>"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nlwrote in message
>news:tmspg2l2bnsh9svvkhrt6lli2guo1377m4@4ax.com.. .

>
>This is why I go for the larger screen size in development - I really need
>to compare code windows sometimes. Never tried it web surfing, but I'd
>imagine many would find it handy. I think it possible that prevalent screen
>size could become relevant when fixed-size features such as certain graphics
>and navigation panels are thrown in - or maybe I just like to get out of
>design mode overload when I am surfing....
>
>If I understand your viewpoint, optimising to allow minimum practical
>viewing makes things better for people tiling their windows side by side.

Yes, you should always be prepared for some readers to have windows
(significantly) smaller than their screen size. It might be to give room
for panels/toolbars of various types (history, links, bookmarks etc) or
because they want to work in another application. After all, one of the
common uses of the Web is to look something up while writing a document
of some kind, so it seems eminently reasonable that one might want the
document and the web page on display at the same time.

In some cases it may not be desirable to have small images, and these
will run off a narrow window, but it should still be possible to read
the text when a window takes up, say, half the width of a 1024-pixel
screen.

In
>this case, should excess toolbar/menu items go off the page as width becomes
>too small, like they do in the browser interfaces?

In most cases I would think it preferable for the menu to wrap. That's
also something I've had a play with:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmat...ssbuttons.html

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

Someone wrote:

Yes, you should always be prepared for some readers to have windows
(significantly) smaller than their screen size.

Well sure, some users might have the browser showing
in a small window. For them, if the display looks oddly
compressed, they can make the window bigger.

For low-resolution screen users who already have
the browser maximized, and the display still looks
oddly compressed, there is no easy solution,
not unless the server side code provides for it.

For dynamically generated screens, each screen
could easily include a "toggle resolution" button,
that points to a smaller set of images, for low-res
users. perl Image::Size can easily be used to
make a low-res set of smaller images, in a parallel directory.

For static, hand-coded pages it isn't so easy.
I have a friend, with poor eyesight, who uses 800x600
There are a surprising number of expensively produced
websites out there, that don't look good at that resolution,
no matter what.

On 17 Sep 2006 12:14:31 -0700, "Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com"
<Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.comwrote:

Someone wrote:

??

>
>Well sure, some users might have the browser showing
>in a small window. For them, if the display looks oddly
>compressed, they can make the window bigger.

Except, as I said, if they need to view another window at the same time.

>For static, hand-coded pages it isn't so easy.
>I have a friend, with poor eyesight, who uses 800x600
>There are a surprising number of expensively produced
>websites out there, that don't look good at that resolution,
>no matter what.

Sadly true.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On 17 Sep 2006 12:14:31 -0700, "Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com"
<Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.comwrote:

Someone wrote:

>
>Well sure, some users might have the browser showing
>in a small window. For them, if the display looks oddly
>compressed, they can make the window bigger.

>For low-resolution screen users who already have
>the browser maximized, and the display still looks
>oddly compressed, there is no easy solution,
>not unless the server side code provides for it.

Actually there is such an easy solution, and it is provided by CSS.
Simply stop trying to dictate font-sizes to the end user. Allow them to
set it to what they find works best for them.

>For static, hand-coded pages it isn't so easy.
>I have a friend, with poor eyesight, who uses 800x600
>There are a surprising number of expensively produced
>websites out there, that don't look good at that resolution,
>no matter what.

That is only because, however expensive they may be, they are badly
designed.