Designing a website for todays monitor market gets more and more difficult; there are so many different screen sizes and resolutions available.

Whilst this is great for the consumer, it's a little more difficult on the humble web-designer, so a little help is required please

If you would take a little time to choose answers from the two questions below, it would go a long way towards helping with the future design of this site.

Basically, the question is... What screen resolution do you browse at (at work) and then again, at home.

Thanks guys, your input is much appreciated.

_____________________________


Now, I am not posting the option for 800 x 600 px (as this according to my stats is around only 1% of our users).

If you know differently, please let us know.

You can post any comments you have, in the usual fashion - at the bottom of this post.

Following on from this post ...


... not so, I'm afraid. All I got was:-

You may not reply to announcement.

So ... here goes:-

Yes ... but is it really progress? 25 lines by 40 characters (or columns) in clear, vivid, colours was more than adequate (and very efficient in terms of control electronics and memory usage) for Mode 7 (aka Teletext mode) on the BBC Micro.

It was easy on the eye, and portrayed and conveyed information readily. As it was too with (text based) DOS "screens", especially in the later years.

Also, with the sort of internet connections I am used to (that is, poor) ... I note that many websites are very slow (and seemingly getting slower), clogged up no doubt by all the crap that I for one don't need.

OK, we "need" to have graphics, photos, and all the rest. Although (to my mind) simple links to all that would suffice.

As you know, many sites have a notice on them saying something like "this website is best viewed in ..." such and such setting. And most (all?) browsers have a Zoom In and Out feature (to enlarge text etc.).

My advice would be "keep it simple", keep things much as they are (the default setting seems to be OK) ... and leave the gee whiz guff to the more ... er, popular (as in, those aimed at the Great Unwashed) everyday, run of the mill, trivial (whatever) sites.

Keep it simple is what I'd like to do.

I need to remove a great deal of superfluous code. (i.e. tables)

I tried it a couple of years ago, but there was such a wide range of visitors using low-res monitors that the site wouldn't work (for those users).

If I can see 'who is using what', then I can fix a width and the site will load much faster. (I am aware that a fluid css design works just as well, but with so much content on display, I think it better to go with the fixed width option.)

Heavens above Geoff, can't you just vote and leave it at that? (sorry, sorry, silly thing to say............... )

If Huw wants some info he probably has good reason. Seems like a bright chap and does after all run this site, so perhaps he has something clever in mind. We will just have to see what comes but I expect there is a good reason for the question.

Thankfully, things have moved on from the BBC Micro (and the ZX81....aaaagh) and for that matter DOS ! Yes, that's right, we even have this fancy stuff called "graphics" these days !

Right, that's it, I'm diving for cover........

... and so you should.

Huw invited comment, after all.

Anyone who is involved in developing software knows how ... (what can I say) disappointing it can be when you ask for feedback ... and all the wallies out there who use the stuff simply can't be arsed to offer any. It only takes a moment or two.

@Huw:-

Yes. And I guess you're already aware that us users sometimes have to "clear the cache" (that is, break and then re-make the internet connection) from time to time to, shall we say, speed things up a bit.

I would also be interested in "who uses what" myself. In conversation with Tim Beacon recently, he reckoned that good internet connections are available at "most" hospitals in Africa these days. Well, the last time I was in Africa was (Nigeria) in 1984, so I guess (hope, really) that things have moved on a bit since then.

But a few of us remain interesting in communicating with biomeds in Africa (and, indeed, elsewhere), and the new paradigm we have in mind (or, put more correctly, that is slowly emerging) very much has internet access as a prerequisite. In short (and as we all know), those who lack it will continue to be at a disadvantage.

Yes of course but do we really need another diatribe on how thing were in the "good old days"




Anyway, back to the matter at hand.......... your votes please ladies and gents.

1024 x 768 - sure, the big graphics spreads look great and you can get a shed-load on your screen, but I am (a) old fashioned and (b) can't be arsed to squint at the tiny text and squitty little icons I get on my 15" screens. Yup - I went to LCD from CRT by boot-fair, 20 notes for a pair of flatties. But it DOES mean I can run the pair together, so really I am running 2048 x 768, which was not a voting option.

Don't knock Geoff too hard though - the green-screens I used to communicate with techies in the USA back in the eighties had three great advantages.

[1] Efficient code (rather than bloat-ware)
[2] Low bandwidth requirements (no irrelevant images or audio)
[3] Terse unambiguous English (and no rambling file names in 8.3)

Happy hollerith heydays.....

If such wisdoms irritate you so much ...

... how come you are repeating them (it)?

It's probably a "generational" thing. The young pups seem to need pretty pictures (else they get "bored", apparently) ... whilst the more mature among us (who remember what things were like "before") actually appreciate that the real value (or not) is in the content, the message, rather than the medium.

what happened to 1080p ? I went for the closest at 1920 x 1200