General Info on Site-Design

[Litron]

Appologies, this isn't really a javascript specific question....

Just wondering what the current size standard is for web-page design...
it used to be 800 x 600 pxls (which seems quite small these days).

Any suggestions.

Thanx in advance,

Litron

[Andrew Thompson]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:20:11 GMT, Litron wrote:

Please refrain from top-posting.
<http://www.physci.org/codes/javafaq.jsp#net iquette>

See further comments below.

"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www .invalid> wrote in message
news:cy******** *************** *****@40tude.ne t...

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:46:49 GMT, Litron wrote:

Just wondering what the current size standard is for web-page design...
it used to be 800 x 600 pxls (which seems quite small these days).

100% of the content window.

100% of the content window.
Yep.
That seems logical - although the "size" of the content window differs on a
machine with a monitor resolution of 800 x 600 than one with a resolution of
1024 x 768 -
It also differs of my 800x600 monitor from moment to moment,
depending upon whether I want a the browser across the whole
screen.

In all situations, I want the content to fit the window.
..I was wondering what general "Screen Size" I should design for
irregardless of content.

My size, your size, anybody's size..
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr =&c2coff=1&q=%2 2any+size+desig n%22+web>

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

[jmm-list-gn]

Litron wrote:

Thanks Jimm,
from the previous replys and my own research it seems I have a little work
ahead of me scaling down the graphics on my site....

As a general rule I keep image width to a maximum of 500 px. It's a
somewhat arbitrary choice and it prevents the window from expanding too
much horizontally. Otherwise the text lines become too long and the image
dominates the window. If it is important, provide a link to the full size
image.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <t4wqd.242999$9 b.196793@edtnps 84>, dated Mon, 29 Nov
2004 02:46:49, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Litron <wt*@noshit.c a>
posted :

Appologies, this isn't really a javascript specific question....

Just wondering what the current size standard is for web-page design...
it used to be 800 x 600 pxls (which seems quite small these days).

Web pages should be designed to work at all reasonable screen and window
sizes. I "never" use full-screen windows - and some people have twin
monitors, making full-screen ridiculous.

You can assume that a reasonable amount of user-preferred-size text will
fit across a user-preferred-size window, unless the user is visually
challenged or the display device is hand-held or otherwise small.

I work with a preferred window size of 640 px wide and 960 px deep, and
a font such that the capacity of the window resembles that of an A4
default-printed page. But I am willing to broaden that for tabular
material that needs it.

Most users will be happy with a page that works well at 800*600.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Euro computing - european.htm UK Y2k mini-FAQ: y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail News

[Litron]

Yes, I'm aware that the size of the "content area" depends on whether the
browser window is resized, maximized, etc. The size of the "content area"
also depends on whether the user has their "Favorites" or "Search" windows
open... or whether they have a menu-bar plug-in... etc.
The reason I asked for the approx. pixel size of the screen for design is
because the content of my site is quite graphic intensive... formatting text
for varying screen sizes is easy... formatting tables of graphics is not
(assuming one wants to maintain the integrity of the images)...
The answer you have given..." [I would design for] 100% of the content
window" is both and ambiguous and superfluos ...
Based on your answer, I ask a superfluous question "At what screen size
would you "design" web-content in the case of a "Minimized" browser window
i.e. No Content Area....?
I believe the previous Posts answered the question succinctly and quite
well... irregardless of browser window size there is still a large
domographic of the population using the 800 x 600 monitor resolution... and
I fully intend to design my graphics and text to maximize "100%" of the
available content area.

"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www .invalid> wrote in message
news:5b******** *************** ******@40tude.n et...

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:20:11 GMT, Litron wrote:

Please refrain from top-posting.
<http://www.physci.org/codes/javafaq.jsp#net iquette>

See further comments below.

"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www .invalid> wrote in message
news:cy******** *************** *****@40tude.ne t...

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:46:49 GMT, Litron wrote: Just wondering what the current size standard is for web-page design...
it used to be 800 x 600 pxls (which seems quite small these days). 100% of the content window.

100% of the content window.

Yep.

That seems logical - although the "size" of the content window differs on
a
machine with a monitor resolution of 800 x 600 than one with a resolution
of
1024 x 768 -

It also differs of my 800x600 monitor from moment to moment,
depending upon whether I want a the browser across the whole
screen.

In all situations, I want the content to fit the window.

..I was wondering what general "Screen Size" I should design for
irregardless of content.

My size, your size, anybody's size..
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr =&c2coff=1&q=%2 2any+size+desig n%22+web>

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

[Litron]

Good Advice...

Thanx again Jimm.
"jmm-list-gn" <jm************ ***@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:w_******** ************@gi ganews.com...

Litron wrote:

Thanks Jimm,
from the previous replys and my own research it seems I have a little
work ahead of me scaling down the graphics on my site....

As a general rule I keep image width to a maximum of 500 px. It's a
somewhat arbitrary choice and it prevents the window from expanding too
much horizontally. Otherwise the text lines become too long and the image
dominates the window. If it is important, provide a link to the full size
image.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Litron]

Thanx John,
I'm familiar with CSS margins, etc... formatting the text,/graphic layouts
to fit the available screen size will not be a problem.
Your answer of 640 px by 960 px window size is what I'm looking for... this
gives me a good basis for designing the content layout as the site will be
fairly graphic intensive and I need to make the size of the graphics work
well within the minimal available space.

Litron
"Dr John Stockton" <sp**@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f9******** ******@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...

JRS: In article <t4wqd.242999$9 b.196793@edtnps 84>, dated Mon, 29 Nov
2004 02:46:49, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Litron <wt*@noshit.c a>
posted :

Appologies, this isn't really a javascript specific question....

Just wondering what the current size standard is for web-page design...
it used to be 800 x 600 pxls (which seems quite small these days).

Web pages should be designed to work at all reasonable screen and window
sizes. I "never" use full-screen windows - and some people have twin
monitors, making full-screen ridiculous.

You can assume that a reasonable amount of user-preferred-size text will
fit across a user-preferred-size window, unless the user is visually
challenged or the display device is hand-held or otherwise small.

I work with a preferred window size of 640 px wide and 960 px deep, and
a font such that the capacity of the window resembles that of an A4
default-printed page. But I am willing to broaden that for tabular
material that needs it.

Most users will be happy with a page that works well at 800*600.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00
MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links,
acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates -
critdate.htm
Euro computing - european.htm UK Y2k mini-FAQ: y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail
News

[Mark Preston]

Litron wrote:

I'm familiar with CSS margins, etc... formatting the text,/graphic layouts
to fit the available screen size will not be a problem.

I think you are getting there, but still seem to have slightly missed
the point. You can rely on neither the object size (in pixels), nor the
screen resolution, nor the amount of screen used by the browser, nor the
specific text sizes (even if you use your own CSS), nor the font used,
nor the graphic width (in pixels). Your design point is slightly
meaningless since you assume that your design or your CSS will apply and
neither of these need be true.

What you should do is assume a reasonable resolution and then both
position and size graphics according to percentage proportions of the
available content area (which may well change). It is particularly
tricky for Flash and Shockwave, I find, but well worth the effort since
your page will look reasonable whatever the user does with the browser
window - though making it incredibly tiny or making the text incredibly
large can still cause some problems even then.

[Litron]

"Mark Preston" <us****@nosourc e.co.uk> wrote in message
news:co******** ***********@new s.demon.co.uk.. .

Litron wrote:

I'm familiar with CSS margins, etc... formatting the text,/graphic
layouts to fit the available screen size will not be a problem.

I think you are getting there, but still seem to have slightly missed the
point. You can rely on neither the object size (in pixels), nor the screen
resolution, nor the amount of screen used by the browser, nor the specific
text sizes (even if you use your own CSS), nor the font used, nor the
graphic width (in pixels). Your design point is slightly meaningless since
you assume that your design or your CSS will apply and neither of these
need be true.

What you should do is assume a reasonable resolution and then both
position and size graphics according to percentage proportions of the
available content area (which may well change). It is particularly tricky
for Flash and Shockwave, I find, but well worth the effort since your page
will look reasonable whatever the user does with the browser window -
though making it incredibly tiny or making the text incredibly large can
still cause some problems even then.

---
Thanx Mark..

Actually, I am aware of the variables that may or may not detract from the
available content area - I was just wondering what current "Monitor"
resolution web-designers are creating content for.... eg. 800 x 600 still
seems to be the standard - I realize that not all of the 800 x 600 pixel
screen space may be available based on reasons mentioned earlier.... as
John mentioned: his screen resolution is 800 x 600 pixels but he designs his
web content to fit within 640 x 960 pixels - he suggested keeping the
graphics to a maximum width of 500 pixels. This is useful to me because it
gives me an idea of the approximate size I need to create my graphics to
maintain the layout I have in mind. I understand that window sizes may
change at the given resolution, but by using percentage settings for CSS
margins and the various HTML formatting tags I can design for the
approximate minimum screen space while still formatting the content to look
reasonable at larger window sizes (the graphical navigation frame on the
left of the screen will remain static, while the visible area of the content
frame on the right will expand or decrease with the window size).
I don't want to exclude people with lower monitor resolutions.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Dx1rd.14763$cE 3.8771@clgrps12 >, dated Tue, 30 Nov 2004
16:50:43, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Litron <wt*@noshit.c a>
posted :

I realize that not all of the 800 x 600 pixel
screen space may be available based on reasons mentioned earlier.... as
John mentioned: his screen resolution is 800 x 600 pixels but he designs his
web content to fit within 640 x 960 pixels - he suggested keeping the
graphics to a maximum width of 500 pixels.

I did not give my screen resolution; it is 1280 * 1024 pixels.

I did not state a graphics size; I'm happy to use 575 px approx.

My 640 * 960 means that the window uses half of the width and most of
the height; I can have an HTML window beside the editor window, with the
editor at *about* 550 px wide and showing 60 72-character lines in
Lucida Console 9 pt regular - also A4-like.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Litron]

"Dr John Stockton" <sp**@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:um******** ******@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...

JRS: In article <Dx1rd.14763$cE 3.8771@clgrps12 >, dated Tue, 30 Nov 2004
16:50:43, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Litron <wt*@noshit.c a>
posted :

I realize that not all of the 800 x 600 pixel
screen space may be available based on reasons mentioned earlier.... as
John mentioned: his screen resolution is 800 x 600 pixels but he designs
his
web content to fit within 640 x 960 pixels - he suggested keeping the
graphics to a maximum width of 500 pixels.

I did not give my screen resolution; it is 1280 * 1024 pixels.

I did not state a graphics size; I'm happy to use 575 px approx.

My 640 * 960 means that the window uses half of the width and most of
the height; I can have an HTML window beside the editor window, with the
editor at *about* 550 px wide and showing 60 72-character lines in
Lucida Console 9 pt regular - also A4-like.

----

Yes, I appologize... I confused parts of the information from Jimm's reply
with yours. Sorry.