1024 x 768 vs 800 x 600

[morrisdan1]

Hello everyone,

That according to the browser's statistics below, the trend is that more and more are using the 1024 x 768 resolution as opposed to the 800 x 600:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

That for instance as of July 2005, 55% was using the 1024 x 768 while only 25 % was using 800 x 600.

Admittedly, I've been designing or maintaining my site based on the way it comes across on a 800 x 600 resolution.

Is the implication there that I should start making some changes in my site and go according to the way it would look on a 1024 x 768 ?

And lastly, when I did try applying a 1024 x 768 resolution on my computer's screen, I thought that it made the fonts, texts and even graphics looked kind of "small". With even the standard 468 x 60 banners looking kind of small... ? :hrmm:

I know I could always try to adjust my computer screen a bit but still... ?

Thanks again in advance!

[Kevin]

Its because bigger monitors are becomming more common. 1024x768 looks too small on an older 15" monitor but 800x600 looks too big on a 17" monitor. I generally run in 1280x1024 on my 19" monitors.

[Stecyk]

Hi morrisdan1,

If you use Firefox, I encourage you to get the popular Web Developer Extension. You can readily view different screen resolutions by just using Resize button on the menu bar. Also, if you do use the extension, please make a donation.

http://chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/

Viewing the stats for my blog, about 10% of the users are at 800 X 600, so that is still significant enough to warrant designing for them, in my view.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Randall]

Its because bigger monitors are becomming more common. 1024x768 looks too small on an older 15" monitor but 800x600 looks too big on a 17" monitor. I generally run in 1280x1024 on my 19" monitors. You'll also find that the ratio of screen size to resolution varies by age. Older users may have 19" monitors set to 800x600, even with their reading glasses on.

I had a lot of clients running LCDs below their proper "native" resolutions, even though it defeats the advantage LCDs have over CRTs in clarity.

It should never be a matter of designing for the majority. If you design exclusively for 1024x768, people with 800x600 screens may be forced to side-scroll constantly just to read your home page, and they will leave your site and never come back.

Randall

[Andilinks]

If you design exclusively for 1024x768, people with 800x600 screens may be forced to side-scroll constantly just to read your home page, and they will leave your site and never come back.Not necessarily. You could put a block of AdSense ads in the far right column or an ad for other pages on your site, so you will get the best of both worlds, a design for the larger screen that works with the smaller.

I put things of lesser importance in that right column so the majority gets it all, the minority gets the most important stuff and can always scroll to see what they're missing.

[Stecyk]

It should never be a matter of designing for the majority. If you design exclusively for 1024x768, people with 800x600 screens may be forced to side-scroll constantly just to read your home page, and they will leave your site and never come back.

Agree completely. But should the percentage of users fall to an imperceptibly small number, however that is defined, then you might wish to revisit your design criteria. For example, most of us no longer worry about those who are using Netscape 4. Perhaps in the future, everyone will be using large monitors and very few, even those of us with less than perfect vision, will be using a higher resolution than 800 X 600. But until that time, I agree with Randall completely that you should consider the 800 X 600 user, because most people will not tolerate side scrolling.

[Wassercrats]

I try to create pages with a font optimized for people with 1024x768, but I keep the content a maximum of 800px wide (or else I make sure that only the border and padding gets cut off) so people don't have to scroll.You could put a block of AdSense ads in the far right column or an ad for other pages on your site, so you will get the best of both worlds, a design for the larger screen that works with the smaller.I wouldn't do that. I want my money. I mean theoretically, since I don't do Adsense yet, but I might start at any time.

[Stecyk]

Admittedly, I've been designing or maintaining my site based on the way it comes across on a 800 x 600 resolution.

Why not use a CSS template that is "fluid" to accomodate different screen widths and screen resolutions?

Many blogs are structured that way. Mine isn't, but many are.

Just google "css 3 column fluid width" (without the quotes and however many columns you want) to find some templates.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. Those who have large monitors can have all their screen real estate occupied. Those who have smaller monitors or lower resolutions won't have to side scroll.

Just a thought.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Randall]

Perhaps in the future, everyone will be using large monitors and very few, even those of us with less than perfect vision, will be using a higher resolution than 800 X 600. But until that time, I agree with Randall completely that you should consider the 800 X 600 user, because most people will not tolerate side scrolling. Usability experts argue that even when you do have the extra space, you should keep your column widths down to something on the order of 500 pixels. Some of those fluid layouts you see these days violate the rule, which actually makes it less comfortable for me with my 1280x1024 screen.

The argument goes that newspapers and magazines are divided into columns for a reason, and that single-column books are only yay wide for the same reason: a wider column makes it easier to lose track of where you are. (Magazines that sometimes break the columns-are-good rule will also change the line spacing and/or font size dramatically to help the eye stay on target.) Technically, it's really about the number of letters on a line. But that's harder to calculate, so fixed-width columns are the usual solution.

And here's another argument that PC people seem to be unaware of (I was, anyway): There's no such thing as a "maximized" window on the Mac. Your 1024-pixel design may not fit on a 1024-pixel Mac display, because only rarely will the browser window fill the full width of the screen. The "Zoom" button on Mac windows can be extremely perverse -- in theory the window should expand just enough to fit a fixed-width page design, but only Safari seems to do that reliably (haven't downloaded Opera yet).

Firefox does have a fullscreen option that acts like a maximized PC window, but I avoid using it to remind myself that Apple Thinks Different®. :wink:

Randall

[Stecyk]

Hi Randall,

You've obviously done more research on this topic than I have.

With regard to the 500 pixel widths, my blog qualifies. But I must admit, I like reading blogs that use wider widths when the posts are longer. I don't like long, narrow posts. I prefer a "book" width as opposed to the "newspaper" width. If I look at a lot of text that seems to go on forever, I am likely to skip it. If I can see the "end of the text," then I am more likely to read it. Note, it is really just a question of formatting as opposed to a question of quantity of text.

I had understood that a newspaper column was narrow, in part, because you can literally read an entire width at a time. With a bit of practice, you can simply move your eyes down a column of text as opposed to across each line and then down. Speed reading courses try to teach that technique.

Me, I use my finger to follow along each syllable and sound out each word. But I can understand some people prefer narrow columns of text.

I do like whitespace when reading. That is something books provide but newspapers typically do not. In blogs, I tend to treat the side columns as white space. Unless I have need to go to the side column, I tend to ignore them. Or when I do go to the side column, I tend to focus on it exclusively. What I am attempting to say is that the side columns are different from the text in that you are not "reading" the side column, per se, but rather getting specific information in bullet form. So I tend to treat columns as quasi white space.

You're right about the Mac. I hadn't realized that there is no Maximized window. Interesting.

In summary, you raise good points. And I agree with better usability. That said, I have seen blogs that use the fluid style with great success. One such example is http://paul.kedrosky.com/. You'll see that his main column is wider than 500 px (at least on my monitor) yet that works well for me. Also, the online version of The Wall Street Journal appears to use much wider columns as well, though the New York Times and Washington Post do not.

Great discussion Randall.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Andilinks]

If there is just a single dynamic width column in the center with fixed width columns on each side, adjusting the browser window will adjust the width of the center column. This is not as bad as having to scroll side to side with each line, it merely needs to be done once.

True, some will not understand the problem consciously and keep losing their place because of the extra wide column. But I think that would be a minority within a minority.

With some design decisions there is a point of diminishing returns. On a site that gets a million visitors a day the minority within the minority is not a trivial number but most sites are dealing with just one or two people a day at most that might be inconvenienced... Accomodating them might compromise usability for the larger group. There are always trade-offs. Spending a lot of design time cuts into the time you might spend improving your content which would benefit more than one hypothetical user.

Time spent accomodating a visitor who may not exist might better be used in designing a more attractive logo or researching alternate color schemes, etc. etc.

I think you should keep the size of the minority you are accomodating in mind as you budget time for the project.

Andi

[Randall]

That said, I have seen blogs that use the fluid style with great success. One such example is http://paul.kedrosky.com/. You'll see that his main column is wider than 500 px (at least on my monitor) yet that works well for me. As Andi points out, in a three-column layout -- which seems to be standard operating procedure for blogs -- the center column is not going to span the full screen. But a corporate site that typically is a single column (maybe with a small menu on one side) would be doing me a diservice by letting their content span the full 13-plus inches of my monitor with no visual "breathing space." I prefer a "book" width as opposed to the "newspaper" width. On my monitor, 500 pixels is about the width of a hardcover book (minus the white space).

The whole question gets complicated when you consider laptop users, as their screen resolutions start at 1024 and go up from there. On a 15" screen at 1600x1200, 500 pixels is a drop in the bucket. But it's 500 pixels of tiny type, so the ratio stays the same (remember, it's the words per line that really matter). Now imagine a fluid layout on that screen.

But realistically, I expect that people with 2 megapixels of screen real estate don't maximize their browsers as often as the 800x600 crowd -- there's just no need, and sites that aren't pixel-constrained could be downright headache inducing.

It's always going to be a matter of taste -- yours and your audience's. Right now I design for 800x600 with a fixed layout, but I'm thinking about ways to give the widescreen folks something extra.

And on the one site that's always been designed by someone else -- the designers come and go, but I do the actual work on it every week -- I'm going to propose a new fluid layout for the home page, which tries to cram in a lot of stuff. I'll keep the basic graphic design but extend it to make better use of space.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Me, I use my finger to follow along each syllable and sound out each word.That's a joke, right?

[Jeff]

Usability experts argue that even when you do have the extra space, you should keep your column widths down to something on the order of 500 pixels. Some of those fluid layouts you see these days violate the rule, which actually makes it less comfortable for me with my 1280x1024 screen.

The argument goes that newspapers and magazines are divided into columns for a reason, and that single-column books are only yay wide for the same reason: a wider column makes it easier to lose track of where you are. (Magazines that sometimes break the columns-are-good rule will also change the line spacing and/or font size dramatically to help the eye stay on target.) Technically, it's really about the number of letters on a line. But that's harder to calculate, so fixed-width columns are the usual solution.
This isn't from my favorite "usability" expert who also argues that things like frames or colored links are way beyond the comprehension of the average adult, is it? With newspapers or magazines where you have to choose one layout and print a million of them - sure it makes sense to design for the majority. But if the web allows you to do a fluid layout where anyone can simply resize their browser to get it exactly the width they want, whatever width they prefer to read, why not allow it to be optimal for everyone? I like to read this forum for example full width; I'm sure others prefer to read it at 800. Should the usability experts force the designer to choose to satisfy only one of us?

[Wassercrats]

This isn't from my favorite "usability" expert who also argues that things like frames or colored links are way beyond the comprehension of the average adult, is it?No, but I forget what chartreuse is sometimes. http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=123417#post123417

[Andilinks]

But if the web allows you to do a fluid layout where anyone can simply resize their browser to get it exactly the width they want, whatever width they prefer to read, why not allow it to be optimal for everyone?Yes, I agree. Unless the content is aimed at children or special adults with a lower than normal reading or intelligence level I think it can be assumed that the reader either knows how to adjust the column width or is accustomed to reading wider columns.

If the column seems much too wide on a larger screen you might consider a larger font size which will have the effect of narrowing the column as the lines wrap shorter.

You also must accept that in a world full of whiners and complainers even "optimal" will draw a few objections. You cannot please everyone and when you try you will lose the majority while trying to keep that last fussy miscreant happy.

That said, I appreciate and for the most part agree with the studies alluded to by Randall. But in bending to the impaired minority the line must be drawn somewhere. Minoritites do have advocates who will speak up and remind you when you have forgotten them. I happen to be one, I will be an advocate for a minority being left behind, have done this on numerous occasions.

Andi

[Stecyk]

Hi,

In reading Randall, Wassercrats, and Sheila's comments, it seems that the "optimum" length is somewhere around 70 characters per line, which seems to translate into about 12-15 words per line. I opened up a hardcover book and counted a few lines to see how many words per line there were. The typical line had somewhere between 12-15 words.

I trust Randall's comment that 500 pixels roughly equates to that amount.

That said, on my monitor reading this thread, I have 165 characters of width. I like it. I would not want the text to be "narrowed." I am able to follow along without difficulty.

In any event, I don't see much divergence in our opinions. We both agree that there should be white space and that the person reading should be able to follow the text along easily.

Oddly enough, the first following site says that longer lines are better for speed reading but most people prefer shorter lines. I would have written the opposite.

http://usability.gov/guidelines/readscan.html#one

Guideline: If reading speed is important, use longer line lengths (100 characters per line) rather than shorter line lengths (55 characters per line).

http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov02.asp

Yet, the following site says shorter lines are better.

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

The optimal text line length is dependent upon several factors. It is commonly recommended that shorter line lengths (about 11 words) should be used in place of longer, full-screen lengths. This is because longer line lengths require greater lateral eye movements, which make it more likely to loose one's place within the text (Horton, 1989; Mills & Weldon, 1987). It also has been pointed out by Horton (1989) that longer line lengths are more tiring to read. Horton recommends that lines should be limited to lengths of around 40 to 60 characters, which is approximately 11 words per line.

They also argue that sans serif fonts are preferred over serif fonts. I thought for text in a book, the opposite is true. I am not sure about text on a monitor.

The sans serif fonts were, however, generally more preferred than the serif fonts. This finding is supported by Sorg (1985), which found that older adults preferred to read Helvetica, which is a sans serif font similar to Arial, compared to Century Schoolbook, which is a serif font.

So I am not sure what to make of all this.

In summary, the fact you Randall are concerned about usabililty tells me that your design will be a good one.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Stecyk]

That's a joke, right?

Usually. :rasberry:

Best regards,
Kevin

[sheila]

They also argue that sans serif fonts are preferred over serif fonts. I thought for text in a book, the opposite is true. I am not sure about text on a monitor.I can't remember where I read it recently, possibly Jeffrey Zeldman's book Designing with Web Standards (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735712018/), but supposedly the reason why serif fonts are preferred in text, but sans serif fonts on the computer, is that computer screen resolution does not match printed text resolution, and the serif fonts on the screen are actually less readable as a result of the lower resolution.

-- just reporting what I heard...err, read...

[Wassercrats]

I can't remember where I read it recently, possibly Jeffrey Zeldman's book Designing with Web Standards (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735712018/), but supposedly the reason why serif fonts are preferred in text, but sans serif fonts on the computer, is that computer screen resolution does not match printed text resolution, and the serif fonts on the screen are actually less readable as a result of the lower resolution.Yes, I read that too.

I don't use sans-serif fonts when heavy reading is required, like a page-long article. With Randall's help, I chose "palatino linotype", palatino, "book antiqua", "times new roman", times, serif for my font-family. I keep them nice-sized though. Whatever size this is (http://www.polisource.com/editorials/01-06-02_00002.shtml) (I didn't put the size in the same tag as the font...maybe it's my computer's default size...it's an old template). Sometimes I use 8pt or 7pt Verdana for notes or something, but for the main text I use serif.

The 10 year old recommendations I've read apply to old monitors. Monitors are probably better today, and LCD monitors are much more popular and eventually everyone will be using them.

Here's (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=105745#post105745) what I said in another related thread.

Won't never be NO ONES minion!

[Randall]

This isn't from my favorite "usability" expert who also argues that things like frames or colored links are way beyond the comprehension of the average adult, is it? I don't accept everything those people say. But as you can see from the quotes in Kevin's post (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=139340#post139340), these line-length studies predate the web and high-res monitors.

I'm not being forced by anyone to do anything, thank you. I make my own decisions -- and they tend to evolve over time. But certain sites that go full-width make my head hurt, and I don't honestly care what anyone else's experiences are. I design sites that I'd want to read. That's all.

I'll explain the reasoning behind decisions like that, but I'm not forcing it down anyone's throat. supposedly the reason why serif fonts are preferred in text, but sans serif fonts on the computer, is that computer screen resolution does not match printed text resolution, and the serif fonts on the screen are actually less readable as a result of the lower resolution. I've heard that from a number of sources, and I agree. Verdana was released at the same time as Georgia, but Verdana is ubiquitous now. I don't think that's an accident.

Most of the serif fonts I see around the web are on blogs written by Mac users. It didn't take long after I got my Mini to understand why: The antialiasing in OS X blows away anything else I've seen, including XP's ClearType. Serif fonts are actually comfortable to read on a Mac.

Some of those sites can look horrible on a PC -- ClearType actually makes it worse instead of better -- because they use a Postscript version of Palatino, the same one Wasser was using initially. Most PC users get that font with their HP printers (also known as Book Antiqua), but the font was designed for printing, not screen legibility.

Whereas Palatino Linotype, which is bundled with Windows 2000 and XP, looks decent onscreen. Those bloggers should be including it for the sake of PC users.

Randall

[Erica C.]

I design sites that I'd want to read. That's all. That makes me feel much better about what I've been doing. :smile: Some of those sites can look horrible on a PC -- ClearType actually makes it worse instead of better -- because they use a Postscript version of Palatino, the same one Wasser was using initially. Most PC users get that font with their HP printers (also known as Book Antiqua), but the font was designed for printing, not screen legibility. Oh no. Does this mean it's not enough to view a site in IE to make sure that it looks okay but that I have to look at it from a MS computer? :blah: My husband won't allow one in the house. :rasberry:

Erica (not that I'd want one either)

[sheila]

My husband won't allow one in the house. :rasberry:

You could always visit your public library. At least, ours has PCs?

[Erica C.]

You could always visit your public library. At least, ours has PCs? I've done that actually before I had a version of IE to check designs in.

Thanks.

Erica

[Wassercrats]

Some of those sites can look horrible on a PC -- ClearType actually makes it worse instead of better -- because they use a Postscript version of Palatino, the same one Wasser was using initially.I thought my PC was the one it looked good on. I changed it for Mac users.

[Randall]

That makes me feel much better about what I've been doing. I didn't mean to come across as such a grouch about it. Unfortunately, the "usability thing" inspires a certain amount of contempt for the opposition on both sides of the issue. I try to stay neutral but reasonably well informed. Oh no. Does this mean it's not enough to view a site in IE to make sure that it looks okay but that I have to look at it from a MS computer? I'm told that IE on the Mac behaves differently from its Windows counterpart (and to make things worse, IE/Mac is already one version behind the PC -- and MS has no plans to update it).

I haven't actually broken down and installed IE on my Mini, yet. But I know I can't put it off forever. I thought my PC was the one it looked good on. I changed it for Mac users. If that (http://randallblank.com/images/moz-screenshot-1.jpg) looks good to you, I'll be ... uh, unsurprised.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

If that (http://randallblank.com/images/moz-screenshot-1.jpg) looks good to you, I'll be ... uh, unsurprised.Is that what it looked like on a PC? I tried going back to Palatino to see what it looks like, but it (http://www.polisource.com/editorials/EDITORIALTEST.shtml) doesn't look like your snapshot. You saidSome of those sites can look horrible on a PC -- ClearType actually makes it worse instead of better -- because they use a Postscript version of Palatino, the same one Wasser was using initially. so it sounds like Palatino looks bad on a PC, but plain Palatino doesn't work in IE on my computer. I see Times New Roman, which looks like it's supposed to.

[Wassercrats]

Oh, I guess you meant it looks bad if it's installed. This (http://www.polisource.com/editorials/EDITORIALTEST_2.shtml) would probably look better to me than palatino linotype. The only problem with plain palatino was the character spacing.

[Snarpy]

There's always Browsercam. (http://browsercam.com/) You can see a screenshot of what your site looks like in any browser on any platform (well, almost).

Snarpy

[Randall]

Oh, I guess you meant it looks bad if it's installed. Right. Since you don't have plain-jane Postscript Palatino on your PC (or even Book Antiqua, which would have the same problems), it was falling back on Times New Roman. Some of us weren't so lucky. :hrmm:

I've even seen some bad font choices on Apple's web site, which may have passed muster under ClearType but got seriously ugly without it. Didn't have time to look into it, but I wonder what the heck they were using.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

I don't like Browsercam's pricing. It's best for high volume users. There are other services like that, but I'm not willing to pay. Maybe I'll try a free trial some day.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, I put an extra pixel of space before every "e" on this (http://www.polisource.com/editorials/EDITORIALTEST_2.shtml) page. I think the main problem is that there's too little spacing before each e in Randall's Palatino snapshot. Unfortunately, it's not practical to add a span tag for every e, and it's kind of dumb. The text in Randall's snapshot is way bigger than most webmasters would use, but I like it. I'd make it ever so slightly less bold and smaller if I could, but I like it like it is more than the Palatino Linotype that I'm using now, except for the character spacing.

[sheila]

I'm told that IE on the Mac behaves differently from its Windows counterpart (and to make things worse, IE/Mac is already one version behind the PC -- and MS has no plans to update it).

I haven't actually broken down and installed IE on my Mini, yet. But I know I can't put it off forever.
Actually, the latest version of IE for Mac isn't really usable in my experience (it's like 5.2 or something...I'm not on my Mac now, so I can't check). But I have MUCH more problems with it than Opera or Safari. Sometimes it can't even display these forums correctly, and doesn't show all the quoted text. (I've removed it from my Dock).

When I read Erica's post yesterday, I couldn't imagine that anyone felt IE 5.2 for Mac could possibly approximate the actual experience of an IE user on Windows (believe me...it doesn't), so I thought that she probably had Virtual PC installed with maybe XP and a late version of IE...with Virtual PC you can install all the Service Packs and run XP and have the latest IE browser for XP on your Mac.

[Erica C.]

When I read Erica's post yesterday, I couldn't imagine that anyone felt IE 5.2 for Mac could possibly approximate the actual experience of an IE user on Windows (believe me...it doesn't), so I thought that she probably had Virtual PC installed with maybe XP and a late version of IE...with Virtual PC you can install all the Service Packs and run XP and have the latest IE browser for XP on your Mac. Oh. Sorry. I'm not using a Mac. I have IE6 on a Linux box. It's running on Wine (WINE?).

Which leads to the question: how many and which browsers do people test sites on?

Erica

[Andilinks]

...how many and which browsers do people test sites on? This would depend on the client's site and objectives.

Certainly testing on them all is the ideal, but it's expensive--not necessarily the testing but getting them all to work.

IE6, Firefox and Opera is all I do and the Opera rendition is compromised artistically but fully functional. Reaching those with other browsers is not important to me but I am my own client. Some clients will want to be optimized on all browsers until they learn what it costs.

It's a good idea to know the costs in advance and advise the client on the costs of reaching the minority browsers with perfect renditions.

But that's just my opinion. :)

Andi

[Wassercrats]

I test on IE 6, standalone versions (http://www.skyzyx.com/downloads/) of IE 5.5 and 5.01, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and I ask people how it looks on Macs and Unix browsers like Konqueror. I also don't use tables for layout and every page has to be valid HTML and CSS. That's why I don't want to be a web developer.

[Randall]

I'd make it ever so slightly less bold and smaller if I could, but I like it like it is more than the Palatino Linotype that I'm using now, except for the character spacing. Hopeless. :rolleyes: Oh. Sorry. I'm not using a Mac. I have IE6 on a Linux box. It's running on Wine (WINE?). Whoa -- major geek in the room. :bow:

I'm waiting for the Darwine Project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org) to bring that sort of cross-platform voodoo to the Mac. In the meantime I've got Windows running on the Qemu emulator, with Q (http://www.kberg.ch/q/index.php) as my GUI interface. (Finding a usable version of Windows was an adventure -- Windows 95 and 98 got voted off the island for various reasons, and I just don't have enough RAM yet to attempt Win2K, let alone XP. Surprisingly, NT 4.0 runs better than any of the the 9x versions, installed with the least amount of trouble, and is more than happy with the 64 MB of RAM I'm allowing it. Every x86 Linux distro I tried ran like sludge.)

I have no experience with VirtualPC on the Mac -- I did get to demo it on the PC back in its pre-Microsoft days -- so I don't know how well Qemu stacks up. But my setup is good enough to run some Windows programs, including IE5. (IE6 doesn't run on NT, but I have my XP machine for that.) Actually, the latest version of IE for Mac isn't really usable in my experience (it's like 5.2 or something...I'm not on my Mac now, so I can't check). But I have MUCH more problems with it than Opera or Safari. Sometimes it can't even display these forums correctly, and doesn't show all the quoted text. That's scary. Do you suppose things are far enough along that we can relegate IE/Mac to the same second-class status as Netscape 4x? I don't worry about NS4 anymore, as long as the page loads and the links all work. I test on IE 6, standalone versions of IE 5.5 and 5.01, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and I ask people how it looks on Macs and Unix browsers like Konqueror. I also don't use tables for layout and every page has to be valid HTML and CSS. That's why I don't want to be a web developer. You're way more obsessive than I am, Wass. Like it or not, you are a web developer, albeit a cranky one.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

HopelessAt least I wouldn't use jpg format for a snapshot of text. I'm telling dank on you.

[Erica C.]

Re: using Linux and Wine.
Whoa -- major geek in the room. :bow: :ROFL: Hardly. I'm using the system that my computer-expert husband wants to maintain. He's the one who then got IE and got it to work; I had to talk him into it.

Erica (the responses of the Linux types to the idea of having IE on Linux ranged from incredulity to hysterical laughter)

[sheila]

Do you suppose things are far enough along that we can relegate IE/Mac to the same second-class status as Netscape 4x?I really don't know. I'd like to think so, but ... :dunno:

When I went to the Apple store in January, they were using IE in demonstrations to show potential "switchers" that IE was available on the Mac. (It is version 5.2...I booted it up to check. Note copyright is 95-2001. Uggg.)

Personally, I don't worry about it at all, but then I only have a personal site, and then a site for my students. I like to think anyone on a Mac would use at least Safari if not downloading a Mozilla-type or other recent browser that is under development.

[Erica C.]

Do you suppose things are far enough along that we can relegate IE/Mac to the same second-class status as Netscape 4x? I don't worry about NS4 anymore, as long as the page loads and the links all work.
That's the other thing I wanted to ask about; how much to worry about Netscape 4x. I designed a site then carefully hid the CSS from Netscape 4 and apparently also hid it from my client who is using a Mac. Presumably he has the IE/Mac that you're referring to. He decided that he'd rather have the page appear as designed on his computer and not worry about people using old versions of Netscape.

Erica

[Wassercrats]

Someone on this forum said recently that he has too many visitors who use Netscape 4 to stop supporting it, but I saw the last available statistics on use of Netscape 4 here (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), which aren't even updated any more for that browser, and I've dropped support for it.

[Andilinks]

I think supporting old browsers just encourages those die hards who just won't let go. Those still using very old browsers are accustomed to seeing websites warped by time.

This is coming from someone who is still using Office97. I returned Office 2003 for credit, I'll wait for Office 12.

[Randall]

At least I wouldn't use jpg format for a snapshot of text. I'm telling dank on you. That screenshot was originally made for an email I sent you, so it wasn't intended for public consumption. The goal was to make it compact, not pretty. Hardly. I'm using the system that my computer-expert husband wants to maintain. Doesn't matter -- you're a geek by association. :rasberry: I designed a site then carefully hid the CSS from Netscape 4 and apparently also hid it from my client who is using a Mac. On some of my more ambitious projects I've been doing some browser-sniffing and then rewriting the CSS on the fly using PHP or ASP. Haven't decided what to do with my latest one, which looks really plain (but usable) in NS4. This is coming from someone who is still using Office97. I returned Office 2003 for credit, I'll wait for Office 12. Haven't heard anything compelling about that one yet either. But this will be the first time they use the new XML file formats by default, so we may start to see reluctant upgrades among the 97 diehards (myself included in that group).

Randall

[Stecyk]

With regard to Office 12, Excel finally gets more rows and columns added.

http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/17_billion_cells/

John Walkenbach, j-walk blog, has some other stuff about new interface and whatever else. John is an EVP (a Microsoft designation to signify that is an extremely talented Excel guru who has been known to help others. Actually, John is Excel's most prolific and best known author. His blog is my favorite blog, fwiw.

Just thought I would pass this along.

Best regards,
Kevin

[Wassercrats]

Here are my personal browser statistics. Zero for Netscape 4.Versions | Grabber | Hits | Percent

MSIE 29069 85.9 %
Msie 6.0 No 28206 83.3 %
Msie 5.5 No 362 1 %
Msie 5.23 No 20 0 %
Msie 5.21 No 4 0 %
Msie 5.17 No 6 0 %
Msie 5.13 No 1 0 %
Msie 5.01 No 313 0.9 %
Msie 5.00 No 8 0 %
Msie 5.0 No 142 0.4 %
Msie 4.5 No 3 0 %
Msie 4.01 No 2 0 %
Msie 4.0 No 1 0 %
Msie 3.01 No 1 0 %

FIREFOX 2456 7.2 %
Firefox 1.4 No 6 0 %
Firefox 1.0.7 No 48 0.1 %
Firefox 1.0.6 No 1915 5.6 %
Firefox 1.0.5 No 10 0 %
Firefox 1.0.4 No 248 0.7 %
Firefox 1.0.3 No 23 0 %
Firefox 1.0.2 No 10 0 %
Firefox 1.0.1 No 9 0 %
Firefox 1.0 No 118 0.3 %
Firefox 0.9.2 No 12 0 %
Firefox 0.9 No 2 0 %
Firefox 0.8 No 32 0 %
Firefox 0.10.1 No 23 0 %

NETSCAPE 346 1 %
Netscape 7.2 No 45 0.1 %
Netscape 7.1 No 259 0.7 %
Netscape 7.02 No 17 0 %
Netscape 7.0 No 2 0 %
Netscape 4.8 No 1 0 %
Netscape 4.79 No 2 0 %
Netscape 4.77 No 1 0 %
Netscape 4.76 No 2 0 %
Netscape 4.5 No 13 0 %
Netscape 4.0 No 3 0 %
Netscape ? No 1 0 %

Others 1969 5.8 %
Unknown ? 815 2.4 %
Opera No 583 1.7 %
Mozilla No 246 0.7 %
Safari No 217 0.6 %
Konqueror No 77 0.2 %
LibWWW No 10 0 %
W3C HTML Validator No 10 0 %
Wget Yes 5 0 %
WebCollage (PDA/Phone browser) No 3 0 %
Windows Media Player (media player) No 2 0 %
Links No 1 0 %

Correction... 23 hits by Netscape 4x, which I assume is less than .1% because it shows as 0%.

[Randall]

Msie 6.0 No 28206 83.3 %
Msie 5.5 No 362 1 %
Msie 5.01 No 313 0.9 %
Msie 5.0 No 142 0.4 % Looks like you can safely ignore IE4, and even IE5 is a distinct minority. Firefox 1.0.6 alone account for twice as many hits.

Randall

[Randall]

Apple's current home page (http://www.apple.com) proves that you can make a fixed 800px layout look sexy on bigger screens: The black "void" behind the Nano expands with the browser window while the content stays centered. It serves no functional purpose, but it tells you that the designer was thinking about both the "low-end" and screen-geek populations at the same time. And I think the effect is simply stunning at 1280px.

Randall

[hobbes]

Apple's current home page (http://www.apple.com) proves that you can make a fixed 800px layout look sexy on bigger screens: The black "void" behind the Nano expands with the browser window while the content stays centered. It serves no functional purpose, but it tells you that the designer was thinking about both the "low-end" and screen-geek populations at the same time. And I think the effect is simply stunning at 1280px. Even better at 1920px where it looks like the disembodied hand is going to get you (or make the nano disappear in a magic trick).

[Randall]

Even better at 1920px where it looks like the disembodied hand is going to get you (or make the nano disappear in a magic trick). 1920, huh? Dunno if the PC at work does widescreen, but I think I can get 1600x1200 out of it (CRTs do have the advantage of letting you crank them up to uselessly high resolutions).

Or maybe I'll just fake it in Photoshop. :rasberry:

Randall

# My monitor's bigger than your ... wait, I take that back

[Ravis]

I don't like Browsercam's pricing. It's best for high volume users. There are other services like that, but I'm not willing to pay. Maybe I'll try a free trial some day.
I agree - great service, high prices...

Fortunatly there's a group purchase happening over at fundable to take advantage of the volume purchase 25 accounts deal. This works out to $19.20 per account and provides a full year of access for less than their daily rate. It's been done a number of times already (browsercam has given the green light to these group purchases) and works really well. Great service, very reasonable price. :smile:

The group only has 10 positions remaining, so if you're interested head on over to https://www.fundable.org/groupactions/browsercam6 and sign up!

[Snarpy]

Yeah, I did a group thing myself, with a bunch of strangers from the CSS-Discuss list. It has expired now. We didn't go through fundable, though, we did it ourselves. It wasn't easy either, since we had people in different countries and that made certain kinds of payments difficult for some people.

I was nervous about joining with strangers for a subscription, but it worked out OK. I used PayPal to pay, so nobody saw my credit card. At Browsercam, I didn't like having other people see my stuff or viewing other people's stuff. I think some of my screenshots got deleted by someone else..I didn't use it that much so I didn't pursue straightening out these problems. I wondered if two of us were using the same username. If so, maybe it was just an organizational glitch in our group.

I also think some spam came from corresponding with someone in my group. I can't prove it, but it is suspicious.

Ravis, I see that you are the organizer of the group at fundable. It is a good idea to post your eBay profile since people are going to trust you with their money (even though it isn't much), but you haven't been very active at eBay, have you? I think you'll be more successful with your Browsercam campaign among people who know you. Good luck.

Snarpy

[Ravis]

It wasn't easy either, since we had people in different countries and that made certain kinds of payments difficult for some people.
Hence the fundable.org service!

At Browsercam, I didn't like having other people see my stuff or viewing other people's stuff. I think some of my screenshots got deleted by someone else..I wondered if two of us were using the same username. If so, maybe it was just an organizational glitch in our group.
Not having been a part of a group before, I can't say for sure, but my guess would be you and someone else were using the same username. It just doesn't make sense that they would give out 25 accounts for a yearly membership, and then have all the accounts share the same workspace :umm:

Ravis, I see that you are the organizer of the group at fundable. It is a good idea to post your eBay profile since people are going to trust you with their money (even though it isn't much), but you haven't been very active at eBay, have you?
What can I say? I'm an impatient guy. I don't like waiting for the mail, so I only buy on ebay when it's an unbeatable deal or if it's something I can't get elsewhere. And while I'm not a really active ebay user, I do have a 100% rating.

I've been around for awhile (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.eyecom-vds.com/), I run a few public sites/services (http://www.comicalert.com/), and I've never cheated anyone in my life, ebay or otherwise. (I know you're not directly accusing me, just feel I gotta defend myself here so no one gets the wrong idea :smile:)

I think you'll be more successful with your Browsercam campaign among people who know you. Good luck.
Er... thanks. I think...

I can see how it might be a little scary to get involved in something that involves money and strangers. Heck, it occurred to me when I was looking for a group to join. But you have to remember that 99.9% of people out there are honest. From watching the news you'd think the entire internet population (aka "us") was satan incarnate...

Heck, I'll give you my home phone number/skype/icq/whatever and you can call me to confirm in advance if it would make you feel better. Just send me an email from my website (http://www.ravis.org/) - or for that matter, just request my contact info from the site and you'll have it.

Interestingly all 15 sign-ups so far are people I don't know, and have never met.

[steveinspain]

Hi All:

I don't know if I'm too late to jump into this thread as it seems to have morphed substantially since it's inception, but for anyone interested...

Prior to converting to the Internet as my medium, I was a magazine publisher for 13 years, and I always used classic design techniques, which evolved over the last several hundred years or so. And, with the advent of desktop publishing, it has become even easier to implement. I have been able to apply several techniques to my site, which certainly give a more elegant look and readability. I'd like to share several tricks of the print art, if I may, as there is some cross fertilization.

Columns. The 12-column grid is really cool. If you set up your page to 12 columns with a perceived space (galley or just plain old column space) between each one, you can set type, images, etc. to proportional multiples. That is, a 12-column grid can have: 1 column, 2 columns (composed of 6 each), 3 columns (4 each), 4 columns (3 each) or 6 columns (2 each). You can mix and match these, too, and the beauty is that the columns will always be proportional to each other. This form of layout is very pleasing to the human eye, and not only adds to readability but also to retention of content!!

Second is type size and length of line. The classic (and empirically proven) length of a line is "2 aphabets" wide, that is 52 characters. This is about how much the human eye can gulp in one go before losing its way, and then the reader gets lost and retention goes way down (in our application, the visitor gets fed up and splits.) So if your column is more than 52 characters wide, increase the point size, and visa versa.

Serif vs. Sans Serif? A very subjective call. It's pretty well known that the western eye follows, and retains content of, Serif fonts much easier if reading text, and Sans Serif for numbers...in print! But for the computer screen, a nice crisp clean Sans Serif is the way to go, but only if properly sized. I set my type on my site oversized, because my target audience is generally over 40 and I don't want eye fatigue for them. As it is I wear readers, and I can't stick with sites that have scrimped on point (sorry, px) size to cram more content in.

As to the original thread title (oh, yeah) I designed for 17" CRT or 15" TFT screen as my lowest common denominator, even though my log files pretty much agree with what's been said (25% of visitors still use 800 x 600). But then I had to take into account that for most users (not you guys, I'm talkin the typical person who has a 19" TFT set to 800 x 600 because they don't know how to change resolution), IE on Wintel sucks up so much real estate with its chrome that I ended up with my standard page size at 700 x 540 (useable). Because I hate scrolling horiz or vert. This has taught me to be very Hemmingway-esque with good clear content. I like white space too, it sooths the eye and allows the content to be absorbed easier.

These things are subliminal, that is, the reader doesn't know why he or she is uncomfortable, but something "hurts" if these rules aren't followed...by the same token the reader's mind says "ahhhh, this feels good, I'll stick around." if you try and follow the rules.

Having said all this, I have learned the hard way that I can't migrate all my print techniques to the web, and anyone who says you can is foolish. But I think I've done a decent job. I would welcome your comments on my site, as I'm really new to this medium and can take all the help I can get...http://villas.com

Thanks, and sorry to ramble on.

Steve

[hobbes]

Steve -

When are you adding Brazil to villas.com?

Also, curiously when I first read your handle -- steveinspain -- I thought you were in pain;) Sorry.

-- Did you see that thread hijacking in progress? --

[steveinspain]

Hey Hobbes:

I'm new to the lingo (first day on here as a poster), do you mean by thread hijacking that as the days went by, THIS thread kinda went oingo-boingo? Well, yes. That's why I started a new thread.

And there are some days that I am in pain, when all my fancy print ideas just don't wanna behave in code...but I'm learning...

As to Brazil, I would love to. But the site has only been up for a little over a month, and I'm still adding content to the areas I first targeted, without trying to commit Internet suicide by having "no content" signs posted all over the site.

Do you know any high end agencies who have killer properties in Brazil? Bearing in mind that the least expensive property has to start at € 2 million ($2.5 million)? Know that sounds alot, but there are now thousands of property sites (probably at least 10,000 that use some form of xxxvillas.com) and I have to differentiate myself somehow.

BTW, do you know of any way to find out exactly how many xxxvillas.com's there are out there? Some form of wildcard search on domain names?

Er, I think I'm hijacking my own thread!!

Steve

[hobbes]

http://www.whois.sc/name-spinner/?q=villas

Not aware of any high-end property sites for Brazil

[steveinspain]

Thanks for the link, man. Over 20,000 domains using some permutation of "villas", and that's just counting the .com versions...so add another 10,000 for all the other tld's? Glad I have the original.

I will, keep Brazil in mind...thanks for the tip.

[PaulKroll]

I'm partial to liquid layout, but now that I have a 20" 1600/1200 screen, admittedly it's a little wide when I'm in the forums. (Having lived with the Amiga for a long time during my formative years, OK well, around 20-25, I tend to do all windows in fullscreen.) And this isn't a widescreen 16:9 (or 16:10 as some are), it's a 4:3. Less square than many LCDs, but still not really wide.

Apple's 30" 2560/1600 (local Apple store has two right next to each other, WooHoo!), is really nice, but you'd best be looking at a site that doesn't lock your font down to a particular size (or you could just keep it close enough that it looks like you're operating an Imax)... also, you probably need to get another mortgage. :shocked:

It'll be cheap as dirt in a few years. And low res, too.