Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Webpage resolution

This is topic Webpage resolution in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002081

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-18-2003, 04:07 PM:

My desktop resolution is 1024x768. Many webpages (not these here) do not stretch to fill the width of the screen. They only cover 3/4 of the screen. Probably these websites are optimised for a width of 800 pixels.
Still, shouldn`t they augment or stretch to fill the screen? Or have I chosen some settings for IE?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-18-2003, 04:47 PM:

They will fill the pixel setting you have chosen for your monitor. Hence, 800 pixels fills 800 pixels worth of your screen. THere ARE some programs that will shrink things like photos and stuff to fit your screen, but AFAIK, IE isn't one of them.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-18-2003, 05:05 PM:

Most designs fall apart if they are stretched. Since it is pretty much guaranteed, nowadays, that the user is going to have a screen resolution of 800x600 most sites are designed for that and are coded to hold a fixed width. It's also easier for someone to read text that is only about 10 words wide (that's why newspapers have columns).

Other sites, like the forums, aren't set to have fixed widths, that's why they stretch to fill the window width. There are no client (browser) settings that affect this.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-18-2003, 05:10 PM:

I would have thought that most people nowadays have 17 inch or bigger monitors so the majority of users would have a standard resolution of 1024x768 or higher.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-18-2003, 05:30 PM:

That still leaves the other 49% who only have 15" monitors.

1024x768 will probably be the norm for site design in the next year or so.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-18-2003, 05:49 PM:

I design all my web pages to run at 8196x6144.

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-18-2003, 06:25 PM:

You will note it was only in the last several months I changed this site design to be optimized from 800x600 to 1024x768. I still however make sure that the pages look acceptable on an 800x600 resolution monitor. Anything lower is tough [bs]

. Anything higher may produce some wasted screen area, but should look decent.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-19-2003, 01:26 AM:

Trouble is, there are still too many 15-inch monitors out there, and 1024 X 768 can be a real eye strain for some people.

Both my monitors on this machine are 19-inchers and up until a few days ago, I was running them at 800 X 600 at 72Hz rate. When I changed to 1024 X 768, it is nice although it takes a little "getting used to".....but if I am reading lots of text material such as news and commentaries, I switch back to 800 X 600 on that specific screen because the print is just too small for me to read in the 1024 X 768 format without becoming "The Hunchback at Notre Dame." I usually sit back about 30 to 32 inches away from the screens.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2003, 01:29 AM:

Paul, if you use the Opera browser, you can leave your resolution at 1024x780 and then change the zoom control on the fly. [Smile]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-19-2003, 01:31 AM:

oooOOOOoooo! I didn't know that. [Smile]

However, most of the time I use IE, but not always. [Smile]

Sometimes, I have IE running two different sites on both screens, and Opera in the background. Sometimes I wish I had a third monitor so I can keep track of all this stuff. [Smile]

If you see me hitting you three times all at once, then you know what I am doing. [Big Grin]

Both my monitors will support 1152 X 864, 1280 X 1024, and 1600 X 1200. It really gets a little wild when I run the 1600 X 1200. All the icons are "pipsqueaks" and I need a projection lens as a magnifying glass just to look for an icon to click on. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2003, 02:03 AM:

You also have a button to choose between "author mode" and "user mode". For example if you are having trouble reading the lettering on a webpage with a conflicting background, switch to "user mode" and if you have set black text with a white background, it will convert the page instantly and continue to browse that way until you switch it back.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-19-2003, 02:58 AM:

IE allows you to set the text size independent of screen resolution.

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-19-2003, 03:15 AM:

Phil, I am not sure how to do that. Does that work with AOL also, since they use IE?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-19-2003, 04:19 AM:

When I was designing our website, I worked on a 1024x768 screen and did the pages accordingly. When I put the site up on a test basis and asked friends, relatives and colleagues to look and comment, there were a flood of complaints that it was awkward to read and that people were having to scroll from left to right.

In the end I reformatted all the pages to a width of 700, meaning that the whole thing will easily fit in an 800x600 display (the extra 100 being a margin to allow for scroll bars, the edges of the window and so on).

It does look a bit empty when viewed on a bigger display, but as Paul points out, there are still a lot of 14" and 15" monitors out there.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-19-2003, 12:55 PM:

Memo to all "web designers": don't used fixed widths for anything! The whole point of the web is to be client-independent. I should be able to use my choice of browser (which at the moment includes Phoenix and the text-based Lynx), resolution, font, and type size and be able to read your pages easily. Anyone who tries to force or encourage the client to use specific software, fonts, type sizes, etc. is essentially starting an argument with the viewer, which does not necessary provide a good first impression. I use the software and configuration that I do for good reasons and will not change just to view a poorly designed web site.

Thus, relative formatting (per centage widths, header tags instead of FONT tags, etc.), useful ALT text, and valid HTML are good. Use of absolute formatting, lack of ALT text, and invalid pseudo-HTML are bad. I'd rather have uglier pages that are readable than pages that look beautiful in one particular browser when it is configured in a particular way and are useless in all others.

Check out the Campaign for a non-Browser Specific Web

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-19-2003, 01:03 PM:

Paul, don't know about AOL. In the normal version of IE (i.e. IE), under the "VIEW" dropdown there is a selection called TEXT SIZE. Normally set to "Medium"..there are 5 choices available.

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-19-2003, 01:28 PM:

Phil, thank you. I just tried it, and it looks better. It doesn't change the text as I type it, but it is bigger after I submit it and look at it again. [Smile]

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-20-2003, 04:16 PM:

Web designers who ignore Scott's advice disable the text size option in IE. This sucks, especially when some text resizes and some doesn't.
Opera's zoom function (0 and 9 on the number keys I think) works with anything. The user/author mode switching makes almost any horrid colour combination readable, but the kerning seems to get completely screwed occasionally with both zoom and user mode, so it ain't perfect yet.
IE6 does auto picture resizing to fit the window size, but the aliasing looks so lame I was always going to full size anyway and disabled resizing.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-20-2003, 07:56 PM:

But only when the picture is bigger than the frame! It is true, the conversion is not very good - I disabled it too.