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

[Mark Preston]

Litron wrote:

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

My daughter is a graphic designer and for work that will be shoved
around the internet, she uses vector graphics. Her bosses have allowed
her to use something very bizarre in Shockwave which apparently lets you
select parts of the picture and set them as a bitmap and make as many
copies of it as you like in the finished picture (including any
distortions you like).

Apparently, this makes graphics that are quite small and easy to load
and the extra copies of bitmapped sections make no difference to the
final size at all. Naturally, being vector rather than bitmapped, most
of the picture resolves perfectly at any size.

Don't know if it helps any - I am no graphics expert by any means - but
it might do.

[Litron]

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

Litron wrote:

> 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

My daughter is a graphic designer and for work that will be shoved around
the internet, she uses vector graphics. Her bosses have allowed her to use
something very bizarre in Shockwave which apparently lets you select parts
of the picture and set them as a bitmap and make as many copies of it as
you like in the finished picture (including any distortions you like).

Apparently, this makes graphics that are quite small and easy to load and
the extra copies of bitmapped sections make no difference to the final
size at all. Naturally, being vector rather than bitmapped, most of the
picture resolves perfectly at any size.

Don't know if it helps any - I am no graphics expert by any means - but it
might do.

---------
Thanx Mark:

What you're describing sounds similar to features offered by Macromedia
Flash (I just started learning it myself although I have created vector
graphics in Photoshop for some time). With Flash (as you mentioned) you
only need to import a BMP or graphic into the project library once... from
there you can add "instances" (or copies) of that graphic - including
distortions and animations - without dramatically increasing the file size.
The reason this works is because Flash uses the original (Library) graphic
as a template and then creates algorithms to describe the changes made to
the original graphic... the algorithms to create a copy or distort the
graphic are dramatically small in comparison to "pixelized" versions of the
graphic. Flash is great for animations, etc as it has it's own scripting
language... but I understand that it can be a little cumbersome to create an
entire web-site with. From my reading, I undertand that it is still best to
create the Majority of the site with html (and possibly javascript or
another scripting language) for functionality.. . and then use Flash to spice
up the graphical content. Like I said, I just started learning it... but it
sounds quite promising.

Thanx again for your input.

Litron