Today's Average Screen Resolution? 200
ShadowDawn asks: "I'm looking to develop a website for average computer illiterate users and I'm just curious what the average users screen resolution is, now a days? I know 800x600 used to be the main size to develop for, but last I had seen 1024x768 was taking over. I was just wondering if anyone out there ran a 'normal' site that 'normal' people visit and would have some insight."
It shouldn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It shouldn't matter (Score:2, Informative)
"Documents state that, in future release of Mac OS X, users will be able to set a global resolution scaling factor in the same way that changes to
Re:It shouldn't matter (Score:2)
Then what should I do for ads and images? (Score:2)
Advertisements that pay for the operation of a site are measured in pixels. So are images, which look ugly when scaled up or down with the nearest-neighbor algorithm that browsers based on IE and Mozilla use. SVG is scalable, but few web browsers support SVG out of the box, and in any case, photographic images cannot be straightforwardly converted to SVG. How can one make text fit properly around such pixel-sized boxes without using pixel sizes for the text so that neither overwhelms the other?
Easy (Score:2)
I already have talked to Google (Score:2)
Talk to Google. They seem to be doing just fine (if not better than the competition) while using text-only ads.
I am already a Google Adsense publisher. All the text ad units that I can choose for my site are sized in pixels.
Re:Then what should I do for ads and images? (Score:2)
Re:It shouldn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming that your goal is to attract visitors, you're better to design for a lower resolution and then expand when possible.
Re:It shouldn't matter (Score:2)
the last thing I want is to maximize a windows and have it fill the whole (wide) screen with 10 lines of huge text.
As it is now, when I maximize a window (in OSX) it expands to the width needed and two of them easily fit next to each other on a hi-res wide-screen
Re:It shouldn't matter (Score:2)
The glxcompmgr that comes with the experimental GLX XGL (names need work chaps
Ad astra! (Score:2)
1600 x 1200 @ 75hz here on a Samsung SyncMaster CRT (LCDs suck for photo work).
troll you? okay... (Score:2)
Same res @ 85Hz here, on a Hitachi CRT. Suck it.
(hey, you asked for it)
Totally cannot wait for LCDs or whatever flat panel technology to come out that's a) affordable, b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues, and c) true colour fidelity
Someday, my prince will come...*sigh*
Re:troll you? okay... (Score:2)
Re:troll you? okay... (Score:2)
If you have any product suggestions, please let me know; I haven't done much research on this in the last several months, so things may have changed.
1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
a) affordable: 499 euros
b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues: 8ms switching time
c) true colour fidelity: OK, I do not have the specs for this, haven't read through the documentation yet.
Re:1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
c) true colour fidelity: OK, I do not have the specs for this, haven't read through the documentation yet.
See, that's the real trick - panels that have 8ms switching time don't tend to have true colour fidelity.
Re:1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
No monitor, at any price, has ever had "true color fidelity." The very fact that you think it's possible indicates that color doesn't matter enough to you to take the time to even understand it, much less need it.
Re:1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
Re:1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
Re:1680x1050 LCD here (Score:2)
CRTs have big problems (Score:3, Informative)
Like that? Here's some more image-related problems [uml.edu].
ISP website - broad customer base (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ISP website - broad customer base (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ISP website - broad customer base (Score:3, Interesting)
Screen Resolution and Color Depth (Score:3, Informative)
I host a mix of special interest sites, personal webpages, and a commercial site on my server. Mostly non-geek stuff. According to our webcounter, these are our users' resolutions and color depths for the last three months:
39.3% 1024x768 @ 32bit
11.9% 1280x1024 @ 32bit
10.6% 800x600 @ 32bit
9.7% 1024x768 @ 16bit
6.3% unknown (javascript disabled)
3.6% 800x600 @ 16bit
3.5% 1152x864 @ 32bit
3.4% 1280x800 @ 32bit
1.6% 800x600 @ 24bit
1.5% 1600x1200 @ 32bit
1.5% 1024x768 @ 24bit
1.3% 1280x1024 @ 16bit
0.9%
Please don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please don't... (Score:4, Insightful)
I increase the screen resolution so i have more space to move my windows as I please. It's not an open invitation to code a website to take every square cm available.
Sites that are wider than 1000 pixels rarely find a place in my bookmarks.
Re:Please don't... (Score:2)
Nearest neighbor image scaling sucks. (Score:2)
Do your HTML/CSS so that your web pages adjust with the size of the browser window.
And watch images scale into a blocky mess when I do img#foo { width: 50% }. Or are you willing to finance the development of a Firefox extension and (more importantly) an IE extension to enable at least bilinear resizing for images? Get bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98971 resolved and I'll believe you.
Re:Nearest neighbor image scaling sucks. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of interesting; sites whose original, or primary focus was the web tend to get it right. Slashdot, Yahoo, The Register, Wired. Big media companys, OTOH, have absolutely no concept of sizeable web sites. Look at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, for good examples on how NOT to do it.
Re:Please don't... (Score:2)
Re:Please don't... (Score:2)
Okay. I'm perfectly fine with that attitude. Of course, if it's a company site then your boss probably isn't...
Different situations call for different things. Personally most of my site is served with an XHTML mime type, because I like it that way. In any business situation, that would be slaughter (as IE's feeble mind can't handle it).
Of course, unlike using application/xhtml+xml, resolution dependency generally points to bad web design...
Re:Please don't... (Score:2, Informative)
If you want some fun serve your pages as text/xml - it's still valid according to the w3c but it makes IE display the pages in the most awesomely broken way!
Don't become too dependant on resolution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are the two important ones to make sure the site works properly at, as 1024x768 seems to be very popular, however 1280x1024 is the native resolution of a large number of TFT screens.
Re:Don't become too dependant on resolution... (Score:2)
If you don't have the content to fill the screen I believe it is bett
Flat Screens Have Reduced The Average Resolution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flat Screens Have Reduced The Average Resolutio (Score:2)
Then I got my SGI 1600SW flat panel, which was 1600x1000.
Right now, I have a Cinema HD Display, which is 1920x1200.
So you can see that my screen resolution has increased enormously with the advent of the LCD. I really want to get a 30" Apple Cinema Display, but I'm expecting to do a lot of travel and so my resolution may actually shrink to the 17" PowerBook's 1680x1050. However, note that this is still a bit higher than my highest CRT resolution was.
Re:Flat Screens Have Reduced The Average Resolutio (Score:2)
The funny thing is that I'm on a 1280x1024 display at my office, and yet 5 years ago I had a Dell laptop with a 1400x1050 display
Re:Flat Screens Have Reduced The Average Resolutio (Score:2)
My Inspiron 8200 is 3 years old and 1600x1200 in a 15" screen, and my dad's I8000 was the same in terms of native resolution. My much newer Dell 1800FP is only 1280x1024 with a 18" screen.
The answer is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But it doesn't matter. What you do is design your site in standards-compliant XHTML, using CSS for formatting (not tables), and let the user's browser render it however is best for that particular platform.
Web designers (and I am one) should not be paying
Re:The answer is ... (Score:2)
Surely the question isn't totally unreasonable. For example, say you have a 3072 x 2048 photo of a storefront that you'd like to have on a page. What's a good size for that to be reduced to?
Re:The answer is ... (Score:4, Interesting)
As large as it needs to be, and no larger:
If that picture is not providing any useful information to the user (i.e., it's window-dressing, pun intended) and is merely a logo or other fluff, make it a few hundred pixels wide (200-400) and be done with it.
On the other hand, if this picture is intended to show how meticulous your building-exterior-cleaning service is, it would make perfect sense to to default it to 800 pixels wide so that is has sufficient detail. A little clever CSS can even show a smaller version to viewers with smaller viewports than that.
Re:The answer is ... (Score:2)
[Click here to enlarge!]
Re:The answer is ... (Score:2)
XHTML has nothing to do with it (unless you're contrasting it to, say, building the entire website in Flash).
Rest of the post is nice, though.
The answer is ... perhaps not the PC one... (Score:2)
That argument has nothing to do with using pixel width layout (I'm sure you know this, but many here won't; the programmer crowd and the web design crowd are two that don't have identical skillsets).
Using CSS for _formatting_ - what kind of formatting? There are two things here: layout and style
for layout, there are things you can do with tables that you cannot do well with CSS without resorting to hacks, browser-specific CSS, or even background images (to make things 'l
Re:The answer is ... perhaps not the PC one... (Score:4, Insightful)
I said nothing of the sort, and that's factually ridiculous, but let's move on the the real crux of the matter:
I'll presume that you're talking about layout columns, similar to those slashboxes next to the comment you're reading now. And in that case, you still don't have a reason to use tables: five-year old CSS can put out a clean-looking layout just fine with DIV tags.
Yes, I'm talking about layout columns, similar to what slashdot uses, but you're missing the point. _Stylistically_, they don't operate the same as a table cell; the bottom edge of the div ends when the content ends, and thus doesn't line up with the bottom edge of divs next to it, so while you can layout content somewhat similarly horizontally, vertically, you cannot, say, place something at the bottom of a div and have it be at the same level vertically as something at the bottom of a div next to it, if they have different amounts of content. You also cannot STYLE them similarly, and have borders and such line up, because of the same issue. And if you have a border between them, it'll stop when the content stops, thus producing the need for all sorts of column-related hacks that you'll find at various CSS design sites. This is a hot topic in the CSS design world, so I'm going to assume you're not a professional here, or you'd know what I was talking before this. Just trust me here - divs do not act like table cells, though they have some traits in common.
The worst part of this is that this isn't a CSS implementation problem on the part of browsers - this is an intentional design aspect of CSS which is pretty ridiculous. Until CSS can truly let us do the same things table layout does, _some_ designs (not all) will require table layout unless you resort to hacks (which I won't do).
Stop that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop that. (Score:2, Interesting)
*TEST IT* in 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200, whatever, but don't design it for something. It should work fine in all resolutions, not having half the page wasted on blank space, or text overlapping, or any other problem that comes from bad web developers saying "thats okay, it works in what I designed it for"
In 1600x1200, Slashdot's lines of text show up uncomfortably long. In a case such as this, should I just suggest that the user unmaximize the web browser window? And what should one do about the blank
Target Audience (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand if you are developing someth
Just stop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please.
You are the bane of the web browser.
Sites should be usable and viewable with any resolution with any web browser.
We do not want an art exhibit, we want a web page. With stuff on it. Knowledge.
I for example, frequently browse at 320 pixels across. I don't visit sites that don't work at that resolution. My employer uses his Treo frequently and has even worse to say on that.
But my resolution? Well above 2000 pixels across.
See, just because some web browsers (the users, not the programs) browse at full screen doesn't mean everyone does it.
Web pages are not canvases- they do not have a size, and by artificially attempting to create one, you are doing the web a disservice.
On the other hand, by treating them as such, chances are you have so little to say that it isn't useful at all in which case myself, and other web browsers simply won't visit your site.
You will of course think it has something to do with the modernness of your design and make it even less usable.
The cycle will continue.
And nobody will notice.
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
The problem is that most people who are paying to get a web site made want an art exhibit. They want it to look slick and fancy and professional. Stuff on it is an afterthought.
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
You asked a question about screen resolutions and said what you were planning on doing with the info gained. You weren't asking "What screen resolution should I design for?"
You're the designer, I imagine you have a customer. Between you and the customer, decide what's best for you. If you're making a site for the benefit of the customer do what's best for yall. If it's for the visitor's benefit, do what's best for them.
Just ignore the idealist
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Oh, I just provide content that apparently people are interested in.
Between you and the customer, decide what's best for you.
It's clear he cannot. He's asking slashdot about video resolution when he really means monitor size. Neither of these things have anything to do with gaining visitors- they only cost a site visitors.
If
Re:Just stop. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it possible to make a web site scale perfectly across all display sizes and browsers? Yes (well, maybe). Is it cost effective? Hell no.
I do web design for a couple small artsy type sites, and their biggest criteria is style. They could care less if your employer's treo can display it properly, they want it to be pixel perfect in IE (I do test on gecko and khtml). A big part of distinguishing yourself from the competition is how professional your site appears to be. A
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Prove it.
I do web design for a couple small artsy type sites, and their biggest criteria is style
I live in the real world. Companies put up websites to make money. Sometimes they do this by selling things, sometimes they do this by providing information so that they don't have to field phone calls.
They could care less if your employer's treo can display it properly
And tha
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Your employer is mentally retarded. That's why he hired you.
Tell him that if he wants to design web pages, he can learn how to do it, otherwise he should leave it to professionals.
developers know better
Yeah, see, I've noticed that they don't. read the rest of the arguments in this thread: They don't know better. They're just as mind-blowingly stupid as your employer, and like your employer,
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Bear in mind the difference between the content and the layout. Just because the content is art for art's sake, it doesn't mean the layout is.
Yes, there are situations where you need to choose an intrinsic width for certain items of content, like photographs. But the typical way of doing that is to offer smaller thumbnail images that can be clicked to expand, and in that c
Re:Just stop. (Score:2)
Show me one that anyone wants to go to.
In general, presentations are better made for programs that are good at viewing them. Some people really like using html viewers as presentation viewers.
These people should not kid themselves for a moment into thinking that they're making a web site.
I have made applications that happen to live inside Safari or Mozilla or even MSIE.
I have even delivered presentations using Opera's won
This page should be of help... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
MTW
Fixed width is unnecessary (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you want to know the screen resolution? That isn't going to tell you what the viewport size is. Non-maximised browsers, browsers with sidebars open, larger than default scrollbars... there's huge amounts of ways in which the viewport size can differ from the screen resolution.
More importantly though, it sounds like you are trying to design a website with a fixed width. That's not necessary. Use percentages, and your layout will expand and contract to fit a wide range of viewports, without leaving an ugly and wasteful gap down the side in larger viewports and without forcing horizontal scrolling for smaller viewports.
I'd like to pre-empt the people complaining that longer line-lengths are harder to read by pointing out that there's evidence to suggest that those studies, while perfectly fine for print, don't apply to computer displays, and in any case can be mitigated by using max-width in ems on <p> elements in a user or author stylesheet.
I'd also like to pre-empt the people who say "but average users don't change the defaults!" by pointing out that, if true, would mean that the average user would be using a non-maximised browser window, as per Internet Explorer and Safari defaults.
Re:Fixed width is unnecessary (Score:2)
I think they do, i've got a widescreen with a definition of 1440x900 and if i certainly can't read sites with a lot of text for more than 5 minutes with a maximized browser...
That's ok since the purpose of the thing is to have several windows opened on the foreground at the same time any
Re:Fixed width is unnecessary (Score:2)
I don't believe this for a moment. I can conceive of no reason why such a statement should be considered even remotely plausible. Please provide a good reference for your statement.
Re:Fixed width is unnecessary (Score:2)
Based on your audience (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, here is my opinion on the metatopic of which this is a part: If you don't clutter up your site with a bunch of unnecessary formatting crap, flash nonsense, menus, table, frames, etc., it won't matter what resolution your users are running at. HTML reformats itself to fit the display quite nicely as long as you web developers allow it to function as it was meant to.
The vast majority of the time, "good design" means less stuff, not more.
"To remove spyware, drop PC in dumpster." (Score:2)
I know a lot of people who are perfectly happy with their old K6-2 and crappy 15" monitor, and have no plans to upgrade while it still functions.
I know of a lot of people who buy a new computer when the old one gets filled up with spyware. Slashdot ran an article about them [slashdot.org].
oh boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh boy... (Score:2)
Boy, you've got that right. With CSS and widths set to percentages I can't really think of why anyone would need to query for resolution size. It's very useful for handhelds and cell phones, but even then specifying another style sheet for those devices is best because tables don't work on many of those devices - again coming full circle to CSS and percentage widths. Hell, even image size (height and width) can be specified as a
1280x1024 is taking over (Score:2)
Some users will keep using 800x600 for a long while though, because they have vision problems and not every app looks great if you select large fonts, or they don't know larger fonts are an option.
My $0.02 worth. (Score:2)
I hope nobody will mind if I go off on a semi-related mini-rant about 1280 x 1024. It drives me nuts that so many LCDs use it as their native resolution becaus
Please, do me a favor... (Score:2)
My native resolution is 1280x800. Fixed width anything is going to look like garbage on my machine, as no one designs pages for widescreen aspect ratios.
It's been said plenty of times before, but designing for a fixed resolution is a bad idea. This is just one of the reasons why.
Determining screen-size on the web server (Score:2)
What I would be curious to know is there any "pure" server-side solutions to determining screen resolution? I.e. if you are running CGI, you can query for stu
Re:Determining screen-size on the web server (Score:2)
No. CC/PP [w3.org] is around, but practically nothing supports it as far as I know.
WWGD (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously look at a website designed for your type of people. AO Lusers.
You should expect whatever the computer came with (probably 800x600) with EVERY TOOLBAR EVER INVENTED. Plus a search side bar taking up about 1/3 of the left side. Oddly enough, those people hate surfing the net.
Please test with different font sizes (Score:4, Interesting)
When sites are designed using a fixed width such as 800x600, the layout aften depends on assuming a small font size so that elements align properly. My banking site is one such web site. When the font size is increased, elements can overlap to shift to the next line, losing some of the contextual imformation of their placement. At worst the elements may be overlapped by other elements thereby obscuring whatever it is that you needed to see. I see this happen often with navigation items.
My recommendation is that while you are designing your site, use the keyboard shortcuts for font increase and decrease in Firefox to test and make sure that the page looks as expected. Another option would be to create another Firefox profile with the font set to 20 points and the minimum font size set to 14. This is what I use in my Firefox settings. I have a small laptop screen with a resolution of 1400x1050 which, when combined with my poor eyesight, has made a font size like this required for easy reading.
I also want to stress that if the layout of the page breaks a bit, that is fine. Most users that browse with a large minimum font size are used to seeing the page mess up a bit. There are sites such as Slashdot and Wikipedia that continue to look fine at any font size. Others might be using absolute positioning for DIVs and may have navigational and other elements obscured when the font is large. The important thing is to make sure that the elements on your page that make it functional still work. If something isn't aligned correctly but it's not a big deal, don't worry about it. If the navigation is only partially visible because of the larger font size, then you should fix that. For example, last.fm [www.last.fm] has some display problems when a larger font size is used, but nothing that impeeds navigation or general usability.
Finally, let me stress that you should avoid specifying your font sizes using a fixed method such as pixels or points [useit.com]. Instead, please use a relative font size such as "x-small", ems, or a percentage. There are still many users that use IE. IE will not resize fonts that use a fixed specification such as pixels and points, even when the font size option in the browser is changed from the default.
Ctrl++ (Score:2)
On the rare occasions that Google leads me to your site for some information that I critically need I hold down the Control key and tap the + sign three or four times to make your fonts readable. Wow does you're layoug f*cking suck reading a couple words per line across a tiny column pinched between obnoxious adds and pointless usel
I have your answer (Score:3, Insightful)
58% 1024*768
17% 1280*1024
14% 800*600
1% below 800*600
10% above 1280*1024.
So, looks like if you built for 1024 you'd safe for 85% of the market, not bad.
Now this is no excuse to make a site that's unuseable at 800*600. You can use percentages almost everywhere and have your design scale for all resolutions.
Re:I have your answer (Score:2)
Re:I have your answer (Score:2)
Re:I have your answer (Score:2)
Designing something to have a detrimental effect for 15% of your visitors is "not bad"? I disagree.
Furthermore, even if the statistics you mention are accurate, the fact that the website those statistics are for is fixed width must surely have at least some bias. It could be that you have a disproportionately low number of low-res visitors for this very reason, in which case it's like saying "I don't need to fix my webs
Re:I have your answer (Score:2)
Except, those assume everyone browses in kiosk mode (fullscreen, with no toolbars or menus or sidebars or the like).
Very, very few people browse like that.
Personally, I use FF with the status bar, the menu, the URL bar, the Bookmarks Toolbar, and the tab bar alwasy visible, with no sidebars. But I don't let the browser take up my entire screen horizontally, either (I end up with something like a square 900x900 area for the content
Re:I have your answer (Score:2)
colors = window.screen.colorDepth;
if (navigator.appName == "Netscape")
{
width = window.innerWidth;
height = window.innerHeight;
}
else
{
width = document.body.clientWidth;
height = document.body.clientHeight;
}
document.write ("<img style=display:none src=/cookies/?w=" +width blah blah);
That gets us a hit to a script which l
a new way to look at web page width (Score:2)
CSS also had max-width and min-width options (that of course don't work in IE; hopefully in IE7) that one can make
Re:a new way to look at web page width (Score:2)
Besides, max-width is the vastly more-useful of the two, anyway, at least for me.
Re:a new way to look at web page width (Score:2)
My status (Score:2)
I still develop for 800x600 desktops, mainly because I know not everybody runs a browser with max width. As well, you can also consider fluid layouts, which are usually harder to develop artistically, but they flow well.
The big issue I've run into is font sizes, especially with images; I wish all browsers had Opera's zoom feature. I've had people preach em sizings to the masses, but sometimes it is better aesthetically to define sizes in px (especially in non-fluid layouts).
Still, you also have to con
Screen Resolution (Score:3, Funny)
2560x1024. Please make pages wider.
Re:Screen Resolution (Score:2)
I don't see any problem with FF's ctrl+ for increasing text size. Yes, the result looks shitty (visuals) but at least the text is readable. Did I miss your point?
Don't design to a grid ... (Score:2)
You don't want the average (Score:2)
You don't want the average, no matter what you think. I can guarantee you that none of your users will have the average screen resolution (which is probably something like 1143.1814 x 869.6295). In fact, I'd bet all of them will be (some integer) x (some integer) where neither integer is particularly close to the average.
--MarkusQ
To Fixed-Width Naysayers (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear fixed-width naysayers:
if you've ever done real-world web design that requires graphics, you'll realize this is a very important concern. If possible of course you'll want to make your website as scalable as possble. But just as different browsers behave differently (not just IE) and you have to sometimes find a good median solution, you need to do that with screen size, as well. And when you include graphics suddenly percentages go out the window, since many browsers won't resize images very nicely. B
Sub VGA (Score:2)
80 columns x 33 lines. (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to use either 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 on GUIs, but that also varies (some of my older 17" monitors are limited to 1024x768).
For all the standards nazis out there... (Score:2)
When I get paid $60,000.00 to design an effective website whose objective is to grab your attention and get you to do something you may not have considered until you see the site.. well, standards compliance is not at the top of my list.
Sure it would be nice to do both but often the extra time it takes to make an approved creative design using standards based semantically accurate code JUST ISN'T IN THE BUDGET and often the
An annoyingly contrary view (Score:5, Insightful)
But you'll notice that many--not most, but I'd honestly say the majority--of professionally-designed web sites that are text-heavy do use a fixed width for text blocks. Despite what some people here seem to think, sites that do that are not designed by ignorant graphic designers too stupid to use good design principles. They're designed by graphic designers smart enough to know that "the web isn't the same as the printed page" doesn't mean that everything we've learned in centuries of typography and layout is merrily tossed out.
One of the basic rules of typography is that line length affects readability. You can play around with the length for various effects, but a block of text that's wider than about 39 ems and longer than a paragraph or two is going to be harder to read. This still applies on the screen.
There's an implicit attitude among a lot of hardcore tech types that graphic design doesn't involve actual work -- we're just sitting around stapling Dreamweaver templates over your glorious PHP, and that any design decisions we make that aren't The Way Engineers Would Do It are proof that we're clueless. I'm sorry you guys resent any use of the web that couldn't have been done in HTML 2.0, but it's time to take your hands off the VAX keyboard and back away slowly.
I agree that when you're designing a web page, you shouldn't be thinking too much about the user's screen resolution, but the reality is that I'm probably not going to be designing my page so it will fill up your 2048x1536 display; I'm going to be designing my page so it's going to be readable on your 2048x1536 display. And that may just mean designing for a specific width. Get over it.
You should still assume 800x600 max. (Score:2)
I don't visit sites that assume they are more important than anything else that I might be doing.
What's the resolution of a Palm T5?! (Score:2)
Recently I installed wifi at home for my wife's T5 and since then she does about 80% of her browsing on that. It can be a great experience on well designed sites or sites that are handheld specific, but on sites which assume an 800 or 1024 pixel-width, ahem!, I don't normally use that kind of language.
Re:0 pixels by 0 pixels (Score:2)
You said you couldn't read books in french, and therefore were not literate in french.
Please explain the contradiction to me. Do it slowly, with small words, so that I can understand.
There's proficiency and then there's proficiency (Score:2)
Ability to perform the most basic actions in a web browser is more like ability to understand signs than it is like ability to read a novel. "The most basic actions" do not include shopping, posting on forums and blogs, or even web mail. All you can expect out of a user with street-sign-level proficiency is ability to follow <a href="...">...</a> links and possibly the ability to fill in one- or two-input forms (such as web search or library catalog). Heck, some users I've seen manage to get a
Re:From some of my stats here is a breakdown.. (Score:3, Informative)
1024x768 44.95%
800x600 36.05%
1280x1024 8.96%
1152x864 4.53%
Other 2.59%
640x480 1.64%
1600x1200 1.24%
And, just for the halibut, from the same site:
Netscape 17.38% - MSIE 82.07% - Other 0.49%
Windows 91.84% - Mac 4.06% - Unix 0.78% - Other 3.30%