James Freeman on tue 23 feb 10
A question for the website gurus out there: Is it still standard practice
to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe to assume
1024 x 768? I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
layout. Thanks.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
John Post on wed 24 feb 10
Out of the last 500 visitors to my school's website here are the
resolution stats...
39% - 1024 x 768
17% - 1280 x 1024
5% - 800 x 600
2% - 1152 x 864
1% - 1000 x 1200
36% - unknown
I have a small snippet of code on each webpage of my site that helps
me to track a whole range of data, including the above system stats.
It's free code that gets pasted right before the closing body tag in
the html. It comes from a site called Statcounter. http://www.statcounte=
r.com/
I would think you would be safe designing your site with 1024x768 as
your target audience.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
:: cone 6 glaze website :: http://www.johnpost.us
:: elementary art website :: http://www.wemakeart.org
:: youtube channel :: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrPostArtTeacher
>
>
> James Freeman wrote:
>> A question for the website gurus out there: Is it still standard
>> practice
>> to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe
>> to assume
>> 1024 x 768? I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
>> layout. Thanks.
Brandon Schwartz on wed 24 feb 10
Hey James,
I think that's one of those questions that are still up for debate. It
seems like I've read lately that the larger size is becoming the standard
but of course there are still people that use the 800x600 resolution. Do
you have stats for your site that report visitor resolution? Google
analytics or something similar? Maybe that would help you make a better
decision. If it were me though and I HAD to use a fixed width page I would
probably go with the smaller resolution. I think scrolling sideways to see
all the content at 800x600 is more annoying than having empty space along
the edge at a larger resolution. (Of course that is only one man's
opinion...) You might be able to center your content on the page so there
is equal empty space on each side which might help it look better at larger
resolutions. I haven't read enough about designing for mobile devices yet
but the last time I checked my stats I didn't see anything that indicated I
was getting a lot of visitors using such devices. Maybe that will be my
next topic of research.
Your jamesfreemanstudio site looks fine to me and I'm at 1280 x 1024. But
I'm more worried about a clean, easy to read design than empty space on the
edge...
Is it possible to edit the HTML or CSS code directly? Would you mind
sharing what software your using?
In the end I agree with some of the previous replies. Make it
fluid/flexible if you can.
Brandon "Fuzzy" Schwartz
Art by Fuzzy
Pottery Making Info
A question for the website gurus out there: Is it still standard practice
> to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe to assu=
me
> 1024 x 768? I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
> layout. Thanks.
>
Beth Donovan on wed 24 feb 10
James,
No. It's not standard practice. Perhaps it's time to update your website
software? There are a lot of good software options out there - some of the=
m
free or very low cost. Honestly, anyone can build a nice site without
needing to be an expert these days! You really should not even have to worr=
y
about the pixel resolution for your site as a whole - the software can do
all that for you.
You can even tweak Word Press and Moveable Type to be nice business sites
and (they are not just for blogs) without having to have a working knowledg=
e
of html these days.
Cheers,
Beth Donovan
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of James Freeman
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:10 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Question about website design and monitor resolution
A question for the website gurus out there: Is it still standard practice
to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe to assume
1024 x 768? I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
layout. Thanks.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
May Luk on wed 24 feb 10
James;
Your site would do better if it's flexible. Nowadays, many people view
web pages on their smart phones (and eventually iPad type web surfing
devices) Please also make consideration on social media friendly
thumbnails. Say, you want to have a good image and formats and short
and sweet description about your site when your 'fan' pass your link
around on Facebook / Google Buzz and the likes. This detail extends to
how you name your file and the paths to your files. (eg: a meaningful
file name Vs image1234.jpg)
I know you would appreciate these details cause you are such a pedant. "-)
Best Regards
May
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:09 PM, James Freeman
wrote:
> A question for the website gurus out there: =3DA0Is it still standard pra=
ct=3D
ice
> to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe to assu=
=3D
me
> 1024 x 768? =3DA0I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
> layout. =3DA0Thanks.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. =3DA0I s=
ho=3D
uld
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
>
--=3D20
http://twitter.com/MayLuk
Cathi Newlin on wed 24 feb 10
I assume a larger screen, but code in percentages rather than fixed
pixel widths in order to compensate for various screen resolutions.
Also make sure to check your page on several different browsers.
James Freeman wrote:
> A question for the website gurus out there: Is it still standard practic=
e
> to design web pages for 800 x 600 pixel resolution, or is it safe to assu=
me
> 1024 x 768? I don't think my website software will allow for a fluid
> layout. Thanks.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I shoul=
d
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
>
>
>
--
Cathi Newlin, Angels Camp, Ca
cathi@box49.com
box49@caltel.com
cathi@SquarePegArts.com
-------------------------------
California Boxers in Need:
http://CaliforniaBoxer.org
Jim Willett on thu 25 feb 10
Hey James,
To help you decide...my web stats show less than one person in 100 views =
=3D
with=3D20
anything less than 1024 x 768.=3D20
Jim Willett
Out of the Fire Studio
http://www.outofthefirestudio.com
http://www.theclayteacher.com
James Freeman on thu 25 feb 10
Brandon...
Thanks for all the information. My old site was written by my kid when he
was about 12, and it looks like it! He wrote it by hand in HTML and CSS; h=
e
did not know flash at the time. It is now so out of date that I don't even
share the address with galleries and patrons anymore. I have not been able
to get him to rewrite the site in all these years, and I'm just not willing
to devote the time to learning how to code for the web. Ars longa, vita
brevis, I suppose.
Rather than trying to fix the old site, I decided to just start with a clea=
n
slate. I got a copy of Dreamweaver, but found it so non-intuitive as to be
unworkable for me. I bought the Dreamweaver for Dummies book thinking that
it would make things simple, but at 400 pages, it would take me months to
wade through it and learn all the features. It's not a matter of not being
able to learn the software, but rather one of not being willing to devote
the considerable amount of time that would be required. I am now using
Serif's WebPlus, which, after reading a few pages of help text and tutorial=
,
seems fairly easy to use, at least for the basics. I do not believe it is
capable of fluid or relative sizing, or if it is, I have not yet found the
key. At this point I think I will stick with fixed width.
I have received conflicting advice off list, some saying that 980 pixels is
safe, others saying to stick with something under 800. Not sure what to do
at this point. 800 leaves a LOT of dead real estate on the screen, but on
the other hand I am guessing that the rest of the planet abhors horizontal
scrolling as much as I do. At this point I am leaning toward 980, but also
making sure there is nothing terribly important along the right edge. May
yet change my mind though.
I'm not too concerned with mobile devices. When I go to a normal website o=
n
my blackberry phone, I fully expect it to look "weird", and also understand
that the weirdness is a function of my phone and not the fault of the
website. I'm guessing that other mobile users will feel the same way, and
simply accept the weirdness. As someone else said, I can't really imagine
someone seriously browsing for ceramics to purchase on their blackberry.
Anyway, thank you for the advice. Thanks too to everyone else who provided
advice and input, both on and off list. I tried to send a note of thanks t=
o
everyone who replied, and if I missed anyone, I sincerely apologize. This
project is really turning into an adventure!
Be well.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Brandon Schwartz wrot=
e:
> Hey James,
> I think that's one of those questions that are still up for debate. It
> seems like I've read lately that the larger size is becoming the standard
> but of course there are still people that use the 800x600 resolution. Do
> you have stats for your site that report visitor resolution? Google
> analytics or something similar? Maybe that would help you make a better
> decision. If it were me though and I HAD to use a fixed width page I wou=
ld
> probably go with the smaller resolution. I think scrolling sideways to s=
ee
> all the content at 800x600 is more annoying than having empty space along
> the edge at a larger resolution. (Of course that is only one man's
> opinion...) You might be able to center your content on the page so ther=
e
> is equal empty space on each side which might help it look better at larg=
er
> resolutions. I haven't read enough about designing for mobile devices ye=
t
> but the last time I checked my stats I didn't see anything that indicated=
I
> was getting a lot of visitors using such devices. Maybe that will be my
> next topic of research.
>
> Your jamesfreemanstudio site looks fine to me and I'm at 1280 x 1024. Bu=
t
> I'm more worried about a clean, easy to read design than empty space on t=
he
> edge...
>
> Is it possible to edit the HTML or CSS code directly? Would you mind
> sharing what software your using?
>
> In the end I agree with some of the previous replies. Make it
> fluid/flexible if you can.
>
>
Brandon Schwartz on fri 26 feb 10
Hey James (and others),
I did a little googling and found some interesting sites. I noticed that
some of the previous replies gave some stats on screen resolutions. The
last time I checked my own stats the 800x600 visitors were at around 8 - 10=
%
but that was an extremely small sample size. Perhaps this caused me to ove=
r
estimate the importance of this group of visitors. Over at
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php there are some stats that seem to
be a little more reliable (or at least have a larger sample size). It seem=
s
that only about 4 people out of 100 use the 800 x 600 resolution. But then
you have to ask yourself "would one of those four be a possible buyer that
might leave too early or miss something because their resolution is too
small?" (in my opinion-probably not). After looking at more stats I might
reconsider my original post. A 980 px width seems pretty safe. Maybe the
larger site size would be worth the very few people that would be forced to
horizontal scroll (it's their fault that they are using such a small screen
size anyway right?)
The second interesting site I found was
http://www.screen-resolution.com/which allows you to test a site in
different resolutions. The only drawback
is that you can only test sizes up to the size of your own resolution. And
apparently you have to have the http:// in the address (at least for the
site I tested).
I am in a similar boat: my personal website needs a mass upgrade. It is
currently a fixed width less than 800 px wide. It really looks extremely
thin on my new 1680 px wide monitor. The only advantage I have is that I'm
somewhat competent with Dreamweaver. As you said, if I was trying it for
the first time to redesign my site I would probably be lost and give up
quickly. Luckily, my art ed degree came with a few graphic design classes
that gave me a small taste of Dreamweaver and other complex programs. From
there I just kept learning on my own as I made new sites and projects. Now
I have version CS4 (which has me catching up on new features) but I create
most of my pages writing the code (plus plenty of copy and paste) but I
really like the live preview it gives me. I know dreamweaver has a lot of
templates available, some that came with the program and a bunch can be
found on the internet. I'm not familiar with WebPlus. Does it offer any
templates? Perhaps one would be a fluid width. Someone else suggested
Wordpress. I'm considering turning my whole site over to a Wordpress blog.
I've found that I would rather have people go to the News section (the
wordpress part) of my site because it has the most up to date information.
It is also pretty easy to update compared to the static HTML files of the
rest of my site.
Good luck whatever you decide. I'm sure if your site has good content and
you have a good product people will show up no matter what.
Brandon "Fuzzy" Schwartz
Art by Fuzzy
Pottery Making Info
| |
|
