• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's your resolution?

I eat pizza now

  • Freud

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jesus

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Intresting Ian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1

Seismosaurus

Philosopher
Seismosaurus
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,092
Whenever I've worked on web sites I've designed so that it's just about useable at 640x480, but primarily with 800x600 in mind. 1024x768 was fairly rare five or so years ago, but seems much more common now. So I was wondering, what do you use?
 
1024x768. It is my understanding that most web designers are optimizing for this resolution these days.
 
Where's 1152x864 ?

Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well.

I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution.

Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh!
 
Earthborn said:
Where's 1152x864 ?

Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well.

I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution.

Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh!
Click to expand...

It's easy enough to be good in any size when you have a primarily text-based page like this one. But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge. You can avoid it by having multiple rows, but that eats into screen space that you want to use for the actual data.
 
But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of relative sizes?
 
arcticpenguin said:
1280 x 1024

And it's a flat panel with a DVI connection.
Click to expand...

Another reason for asking is that it's about time to ditch my old CRT, so I'm casting my beady eye over 17 inch LCD monitors. So I'm jealous, but I may not be for much longer! :D
 
Underemployed said:
You did not list 1600 by 1200.....

yuo aer not l33t enough d00d
Click to expand...

grumble grumble.. not enough options... grumble grumble... first time I've done a poll... grumble grumble... do better next time...
 
800x600 here, because I'm six feet from the monitor. 1280x1024 at work, where I'm two feet away.

Distance from the monitor really makes a difference to the maximum practical res.

I agree about sites catering for different resolutions. I went to a site to day that shot up a javascript popup telling me something like "This site is designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution. Please change your desktop resolution to see the full site". I though "nope, I'll shop somewhere they can be bothered to put some thought into design."

I've done a fair amount of site design, and it's not difficult. If you're in one of those rare situations where circumstances mean it's not particularly practical to cater to low-res, knock up a quick script to show a differently laid-out page (using css) for the low-res browsers.

Cheers,
Rat.
 
1600x1200 screen res.

With an active workspace around that.
 
Earthborn said:
Ever heard of relative sizes?
Click to expand...

Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics.

It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that...
 
1280 X 1024 @ 85 Hertz refresh rate, I could set it to 1600 X 1200 but that resolution only supports a 75 Hertz refresh rate which isn't as easy on the eyes.
 
1280x1024 on our laptop LCD set as the primary screen
1024x768 on a CRT set as a secondary screen for the laptop

1024x768 on our desktop

Edited to add that, when I run Linux on my laptop, I use a resolution of 1400x1050
 
Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics.
Click to expand...
Ever tried to make an HTML document with relative sizes for text depending on screen resolution? It is very hard. For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages. Only problem you will face is with tables in Opera, as Opera always interprets percentages as percentages of the screenwidth, while other browsers interpret them as percentages of the width of the table cell.
It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that...
Click to expand...
But almost all resolutions common today have the same aspect ratio: 4x3. And if even if it hasn't, it shouldn't be such a problem, since you can always decide to only give the relative size for the width, ommiting the height. It will cause the picture to remain its own aspect ratio. That way, people using strange resolutions with different aspect ratios may have to scroll down a little, or will have a little extra space at the bottom of the screen.
 
What, no laptop users?

My screen size is good ol' 800x600. Primarily, this is because my main computer is a subnotebook - the Thinkpad 240. Sweet machine, but the screen's small.

That's the price you pay for a computer that weighs less than three pounds!
 
1280X1024 17" flat screen CRT. $99.99 after rebates. I done good.
 
1600x1200 Mostly, 2048x1536 when I need to test > 120dpi res, or give my self eyestrain from the flicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom