|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
2006-03-19, 01:21 AM | #1 |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
Post your thoughts on phasing out 800x600 and start designing for 1024x768 and up
Think it's too early still?
I just looked and 85% of my users are running 1024 x 768 or higher and the other 15% of my users are running 800x600 or smaller. Does pissing off 15% to make the other 85% happier make sense? At what point do you take the plunge? 10%, 5%? Discuss...... |
2006-03-19, 01:32 AM | #2 |
I'm the only guy in the world who has to wake up to have a nightmare
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,895
|
How do you find out which resolution they are surfing? I have awstats but see only the browser, not the resolution.
|
2006-03-19, 01:35 AM | #3 |
Took the hint.
|
BV, the theory is that you can satisfy 100% of them if you use the lower size. This topic seems to come up about every 6 months, and each time it gets closer to "bigger screen" time. Some of the blogs and things I am working on use larger screen widths.
Alex |
2006-03-19, 01:46 AM | #4 | |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if you can get that info from the Apache log file either. Something tells me no. When I parse my log files with FastStats Analyzer there is no browser resolution information. The stats I posted above are from using http://www.statcounter.com/ on a few of my pages. |
|
2006-03-19, 01:55 AM | #5 |
Vagabond
|
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/February/res.php
I use 1024x768 and it doesn't make me happier if a site is bigger (made for 1024). But it does piss me off if I have to scroll horizontally. |
2006-03-19, 01:57 AM | #6 |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
I just thought of an idea, I'm going to place an invisible counter inside the members area and check the resolution stats of the "paying" customers.
|
2006-03-19, 02:18 AM | #7 | |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-03-19, 02:58 AM | #8 |
I'm the only guy in the world who has to wake up to have a nightmare
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,895
|
Gotcha on the stats. With the billboard real estate that can be overcome by using a % table width once you know it fits at 800x600, but obviously sometimes it's hard to get things looking how you want exactly in both resolutions. I tend to make my freesites specifically at 800x600 'compliant' and tinker more with main sites to make the most of both resolutions.
|
2006-03-19, 03:41 AM | #9 | |
Progress rarely comes in buckets, it normally comes in teaspoons
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dark Side Of Naboo
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-03-19, 03:52 AM | #10 |
Took the hint.
|
My concern working with a very large monitor is that when the browser is maximized, those 480X80 banners look freaking puny! at my current 1600X1200, I can put THREE of them side by side and still have spacing. That means if I build a site for 800X600, then I am looking at more empty space besides those banners than there is banner. At a certain point it isn't just a question of billboard space per se, but that the banners themselves are probably too small relative to the viewing area.
Alex |
2006-03-19, 03:58 AM | #11 |
HEY NOW!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in the Matrix Glitching on an Endless Loop. Loop. Loop. Loop. Loo
Posts: 1,218
|
I build to fit 800x600 but if I use banners I try to use big ones so that the surfers with high resolutions don't see a tiny little ad
__________________
don't mind me im nothing but nonsense <3 |
2006-03-19, 05:43 AM | #12 |
If you don’t take a chance the Angels won’t dance
|
Banners have been dead for me for years. If you want to add something to text use headers
|
2006-03-19, 09:48 AM | #13 |
Certified Nice Person
|
The issue that seems to get somewhat forgotten is the fact that you shouldn't build for higher resolustions while leaving your font and image sizes the same as you've used for 8x6. Those things should be resized relative to the page size for easier viewing. Everyone who wants to build for the higher resolutions always seem to want to squeeze in more ad space around the original page which was constructed for 8x6, and is very difficult to read at 10x7. If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.
Did that make any sense or did I talk myself into a circle again?
__________________
Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling. |
2006-03-19, 10:15 AM | #14 |
Subversive filth of the hedonistic decadent West
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southeast Florida
Posts: 27,936
|
Mine is set for 1152x720 but I don't surf with my browser taking up the whole screen.
|
2006-03-19, 10:19 AM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mohawk, New York
Posts: 19,477
|
My thinking has always been to build for the least common denominator. I remember when java and javascript was just cool and not considered evil. But it took years before IE decided to include it in their browser. They just kept fighting it and fighting it coming up with their own crap. Until finally they decided to use it.
So, until you see 90% or more using more than 800x600, stick with it. Of course, you could always design 2 copies and let them choose. When I built my first adult site, there was a little script that looked at the resolution and sent the person to the proper designed site. Then again, that was back when you could make a nice living on just one site. So, I had plenty of time to play around with it. |
2006-03-19, 10:28 AM | #16 | |
That which does not kill us, will try, try again.
|
Quote:
http://goldpanner.ca/goldpanner/index.htm
__________________
"If you're happy and you know it, think again." -- Guru Pitka |
|
2006-03-19, 12:10 PM | #17 | |
A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
__________________
Monster Partners |
|
2006-03-19, 12:28 PM | #18 |
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
|
My screen is 2560x1024, since I have dual monitors, and I agree 800x600 is TINY. Because of my dual monitors, I surf full sized in one screen, so 1280x1024.
I've been using a lot more banners that are 500x100 or 500x150 plus text to make the ad stand out more, but I still build adult sites for 800x600. I build non-adult though for 1024x768. I tell you one thing, the old paysites built for 800x600 look really goofy in my screen, since most of the tour pages are only 400high. I like the "reality style" better where they may only be 800 wide, but they go down the page a lot further. I also suggest centering your sites in the window. I always start out with 750 wide centered table around the whole page. Nothing like surfing with all this real estate, and seeing a site crammed into the left corner to look REALLY odd. I just looked at theredcherry, I have an even 20% now using 800x600. 58% are using 1024x768, the rest are using something larger than 800x600.
__________________
Our 3D Comics and Props on Renderotica |
2006-03-19, 01:43 PM | #19 | |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
Quote:
I don't think I have ever seen that before. The source code looks encrypted |
|
2006-03-19, 01:52 PM | #20 | |
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-03-19, 05:55 PM | #21 |
Took the hint.
|
Jim, interestingly, by your logic we could all build for 640x480 because then you won't piss anyone off... or perhpas 320x160 to make the atari and apple II people happy too, right?
I very, very rarely see anyone using 800x600 in real life anymore, as most computers made in the last 3 or 4 years all use larger screen resolutions. We have also gone a long way from 14 inch to 15 inch to 17 inch monitors now being the "bare minimum" that gets sold with a system. A quick check through bestbuy, example, shows that their smallest crt type monitor is 17 inches... all of $130 dollars. We are pretty much down to the same level that we all stopped paying attention to the 640x480 screens... it might be time. Alex |
2006-03-19, 06:18 PM | #22 | |||
Certified Nice Person
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling. |
|||
2006-03-19, 06:28 PM | #23 | |
Certified Nice Person
|
Quote:
__________________
Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling. |
|
2006-03-19, 06:51 PM | #24 |
Took the hint.
|
17" is the standard issue monitor these days. 1024xwhatever or so seems to be about the default resolution with those monitors, although some people so step it down to 800x600.
Rather than increasing in size, many people are moving to LCD monitors instead of CRTs. My 17 inch secondary monitor is set to 1280x1024 without issues... the 20 inch is set to 1600x1200 (the smaller monitor does email, video display, and ftp work). When I first set it up it felt slightly small, but now when I use my laptop at 800x600, I feel like I am sitting way too close to the screen. Alex |
2006-03-19, 07:26 PM | #25 | |
WHO IS FONZY!?! Don't they teach you anything at school?
|
Quote:
1024x768 - 56.98% 800x600 - 21.09% 1280x1024 - 13.22% Other - 4.19% 1152x864 - 3.62% 1600x1200 - 0.44% 640x480 - 0.41% Varies a bit from site to site, with 800x600 between 18 & and 23% Other stats that some might be interesting : Javascript Enabled - 98.79% Javascript Disabled - 1.21% Mac OS X - 4.11% Linux - 0.36% (and 99% of those hackers *lol*) Screen Colors 32 Bit (16.7M) - 90.70% 16 Bit (65K) - 7.25% 8 Bit (256) - 0.13%
__________________
RewardThem - Now Up To 70% Revshare ! |
|
|
|