Tony, your points are well made, and are those that I've made often, but you missed mentioning an interesting phenomenon.
With prices dropping continually, it's an easy conclusion to jump to that web users are moving toward high resolution screens too. However, with the rising popularity of hand held devices of various types, many consumers are in fact moving toward lower resolution displays.
As this trend continues I wouldn't be surprised to see 640*480 once again become the de facto standard for web page resolution that we design for.
After all, it's consumers and business/market objectives that dictate how we present websites, not developers.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Is the content/layout for the handheld devices going to be the same as that meant for the regular PCs?
I'm jumping into this rather late but felt compelled to add: Users and developers should have their screen resolution set at whatever works best for THEM. (IMHOP)I prefer 1280x1024 while using my graphics programs because it gives me a feeling of "room to work." However, when designing a web page, while a designer can recommend the best resolution for the user to view their web page, the designer should view their page in ALL the most popular resolutions before actually uploading. (and with several different browsers) That way, they will know how the page looks at each resolution and be able to adjust accordingly. It takes a little extra work, but well worth the effort if the developer wants repeat visits to their page/site. 
For starters this article indicates that you have never tried to configure Windows 2003 Server - the lowest resolution you can use to configure is 1024 x 768. The dialogue boxes don't fit on lower resolutions.
For best clarity and detail LCD screens should always be set to the native resolution of that screen. This is actually the highest resolution supported. Using lower resolutions makes the OS stretch pixels over two, three or even four screen pixels resulting in blurry and jagged edges - especially on text.
Then use the features available in every modern GUI OS and increase screen elements font sizes until appropriate. In Windows choose the tab before "Settings" - it's called "Appearance" to change these. The simplest way is to choose Large or Extra Large Fonts.
I work and teach in an adult educational college and two weeks ago got sick of changing the teachers screen resolution from 640 x 480 on a 17" CRT monitor. This screen is also connected to a data projector and used to demonstrate applications to students. I changed the resolution to 1152 x 864, deliberately an unusal setting, and increased the font size to Extra Large Fonts. Two weeks later the screen is still set to this configuration because students and teachers have been able to see all text and more screen real estate.
Articles like this suggest the columnist is still stuck in the 80's - developing old style software interfaces for 14" CRT monitors or terminals. If you really want interfaces to scale, use a web interface that uses Cascading Style Sheets for each media type and a fluid design that hides inappropriate content for each media type.
For best clarity and detail LCD screens should always be set to the native resolution of that screen. This is actually the highest resolution supported. Using lower resolutions makes the OS stretch pixels over two, three or even four screen pixels resulting in blurry and jagged edges - especially on text.
Then use the features available in every modern GUI OS and increase screen elements font sizes until appropriate. In Windows choose the tab before "Settings" - it's called "Appearance" to change these. The simplest way is to choose Large or Extra Large Fonts.
I work and teach in an adult educational college and two weeks ago got sick of changing the teachers screen resolution from 640 x 480 on a 17" CRT monitor. This screen is also connected to a data projector and used to demonstrate applications to students. I changed the resolution to 1152 x 864, deliberately an unusal setting, and increased the font size to Extra Large Fonts. Two weeks later the screen is still set to this configuration because students and teachers have been able to see all text and more screen real estate.
Articles like this suggest the columnist is still stuck in the 80's - developing old style software interfaces for 14" CRT monitors or terminals. If you really want interfaces to scale, use a web interface that uses Cascading Style Sheets for each media type and a fluid design that hides inappropriate content for each media type.
2003 Server configuration screens are not even remotely intended to be put into the hands of non-technical web users.
I've seen many users with 1024*768 screens who permanently have their Favourites toolbar down the side, thereby giving themselves available real estate of about 700*700. I've seen users of 800*600 screens do the same thing, leaving only 500*540 to work with.
Then there are others who have larger screens, but elect to reduce the window down to about 800*600 anyway.
If you take the time and trouble to understand users, you 'll find that almost without exception they think that their particular manifestation of any given website is the way it was designed. Never mind the fact that if they spoke to 50 friends they'd see 50 "different" manifestations.
That's why the sites that I do are designed to preserve the objectives, look and feel of the business they're there to represent, irrespective of the layout or screen resolution.
Bottom line? When designing for print or in the nicely controlled development environment you have total control over layout, colour, resolution, size and content placement. When designing for the web, you have no control whatsoever.
If you can't design for your audience you're in the wrong job.
I've seen many users with 1024*768 screens who permanently have their Favourites toolbar down the side, thereby giving themselves available real estate of about 700*700. I've seen users of 800*600 screens do the same thing, leaving only 500*540 to work with.
Then there are others who have larger screens, but elect to reduce the window down to about 800*600 anyway.
If you take the time and trouble to understand users, you 'll find that almost without exception they think that their particular manifestation of any given website is the way it was designed. Never mind the fact that if they spoke to 50 friends they'd see 50 "different" manifestations.
That's why the sites that I do are designed to preserve the objectives, look and feel of the business they're there to represent, irrespective of the layout or screen resolution.
Bottom line? When designing for print or in the nicely controlled development environment you have total control over layout, colour, resolution, size and content placement. When designing for the web, you have no control whatsoever.
If you can't design for your audience you're in the wrong job.
Does it matter which? No. You should cater for both trends. And for any weird resolution.
I have summed some of this up in my blog entry
http://roho2003.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-standard-in-screen-resolution.html
The thing that really struck me in the article was the bit JavaScript where a user is redirected to an appropriate page where loading the right css file would have been much, much better.
A fluid or liquid design as suggested can often prevent the issues but not all. It is not the solution to the resolution question. Some designs just can be turned into a fluid design line length can not be increased without losing readability in the end.
You have carefully decide for every web site design which resolution you will target or if a fluid design is possible or if you should use some clever window size dependent style switching.
It is one of the design decisions that will allways have to be made and it is possible that the correct answer today is completely outdated tomorrow.
I have summed some of this up in my blog entry
http://roho2003.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-standard-in-screen-resolution.html
The thing that really struck me in the article was the bit JavaScript where a user is redirected to an appropriate page where loading the right css file would have been much, much better.
A fluid or liquid design as suggested can often prevent the issues but not all. It is not the solution to the resolution question. Some designs just can be turned into a fluid design line length can not be increased without losing readability in the end.
You have carefully decide for every web site design which resolution you will target or if a fluid design is possible or if you should use some clever window size dependent style switching.
It is one of the design decisions that will allways have to be made and it is possible that the correct answer today is completely outdated tomorrow.
In considering a higher resolution, there is a glitch (1280 x 1024 is NOT 4:3) in the "standard" choices of values, and unfortunately the glitch value is THE MOST COMMON native resolution for LCD displays. In fact, to get a correct/clear display on most of them, this is the ONLY resolution to use.
For developers, it should not be difficult for them to "rope off" a 1280 x 960 test area, so at least round things will still be round in other 4:3 displays, but most regular users will not have this option (at least, it will not be reasonable) on their monitors.
Therefore, in designing for these users, we must focus on "square pixel layout", wherein a circle (or a square) is correctly displayed on any screen where e.g. 100 pixels measures the same number of inches (or mm) either horizontally or vertically. This is approximately true for most LCD monitors, and many other devices.
How is this being addressed?
Jim
For developers, it should not be difficult for them to "rope off" a 1280 x 960 test area, so at least round things will still be round in other 4:3 displays, but most regular users will not have this option (at least, it will not be reasonable) on their monitors.
Therefore, in designing for these users, we must focus on "square pixel layout", wherein a circle (or a square) is correctly displayed on any screen where e.g. 100 pixels measures the same number of inches (or mm) either horizontally or vertically. This is approximately true for most LCD monitors, and many other devices.
How is this being addressed?
Jim
Personally, I build sites to W3C standards, incluing Accessability.
So the fact my display is at 1280 by 1024 is not relevant, I head over to a friend that uses 640 by 480 and check the site with his system, if it doesn't display right then I fix it until it does.
and yup, I do know people using 640 by 480 still.
So the fact my display is at 1280 by 1024 is not relevant, I head over to a friend that uses 640 by 480 and check the site with his system, if it doesn't display right then I fix it until it does.
and yup, I do know people using 640 by 480 still.
Until the lcd screen became popular there was rarely a complaint from users about the size of the app on screen.
Trying to explain to a user why it is only sharp at one resolution is difficult.
The next week I will often see that the user has changed the resolution to a blurry 800 X 600.
Resizing the fonts etc does not allways work for some apps as the titles for colunms etc often become misaligned.
The only real solution is to try the app in all situations in the design stage, and try and make it as fluid as possible.
With old apps somtimes swapping lcd monitors with crt monitors from other users is the only solution.
Trying to explain to a user why it is only sharp at one resolution is difficult.
The next week I will often see that the user has changed the resolution to a blurry 800 X 600.
Resizing the fonts etc does not allways work for some apps as the titles for colunms etc often become misaligned.
The only real solution is to try the app in all situations in the design stage, and try and make it as fluid as possible.
With old apps somtimes swapping lcd monitors with crt monitors from other users is the only solution.
Making your applications work under many different user settings is not only considerate but it's also PROFESSIONAL!!! Shame on you.
You'd never succeed in a big corporate environment.
You'd never succeed in a big corporate environment.
which is why coding for accesability as per the WAI on W3C website is part of what I do :P
after all, it's the flash / multimedia sites that chase people away by not displaying right on any resolution.
after all, it's the flash / multimedia sites that chase people away by not displaying right on any resolution.
I hate the Flash Player on my ISP's home page. (Comcast) I can't make the writing larger. I have my monitor about three feet away so that I can walk in front of it. I have it set up so that it is in front of my couch and to one side of the tv screen. Sweet. When I have a page with Flash Player displaying writing I have to get close to the screen and put on my glasses.
Flash is fine, when used approriately; it's the developers who are enamored with it that suck.
Administrators and hardware installers,
get the brunt of complaints from users on this topic,
I would be happy if most apps worked at around
1024 x 768 and if the developer took the time,
see what happens when different size fonts etc are adjusted in windows.
Overlapping labels, and misalligned titles, can take ages to get around, by tinkering with the windows display settings, something most small companies can ill afford a technicians time to do.
Its not that hard from a developers point of view to make the page or app at least readable in the most popular screen resolutions.
Crt's in the many companies are often set to 800x600, lcds in companies are usually set at the native res, usually something higher than 1024 x 768, depending on the size of the lcd screen.
get the brunt of complaints from users on this topic,
I would be happy if most apps worked at around
1024 x 768 and if the developer took the time,
see what happens when different size fonts etc are adjusted in windows.
Overlapping labels, and misalligned titles, can take ages to get around, by tinkering with the windows display settings, something most small companies can ill afford a technicians time to do.
Its not that hard from a developers point of view to make the page or app at least readable in the most popular screen resolutions.
Crt's in the many companies are often set to 800x600, lcds in companies are usually set at the native res, usually something higher than 1024 x 768, depending on the size of the lcd screen.
Just because someone has 1024x or higher does not mean they want their screen covered with your page. I don't maximize my windows. I like to keep my task bar in sight w/o having to flag it as 'always on top.' I generally have more than one thing running at once.
So many times I come to a page that's much larger than it needs, just because the developer wants to strut his stuff. Sometimes they go so far as to resize the screen to cover mine like an animal marking its territory.
"Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we must do a thing."
So many times I come to a page that's much larger than it needs, just because the developer wants to strut his stuff. Sometimes they go so far as to resize the screen to cover mine like an animal marking its territory.
"Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we must do a thing."
i got this one script... do try here
http://techjunk.websewak.com/handling-screen-resolution-issues-in-javascript/
cheers
hydhost.com
http://techjunk.websewak.com/handling-screen-resolution-issues-in-javascript/
cheers
hydhost.com
really liked the discussion. We built our portal (MOSS) to a desktop standard and then attempted to display using projection screens for conference use. The display needs adjustment depending on conference room size and audience as well as what's actually being displayed (words versus charts). customers don't always know how to adjust, and in many cases (we have over a hundred conf rms) the display settings are controlled by admin. so, we are thinking of portal build standards that take into account both desktop and projection display resolutions and drive pixel width for displays.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
