I am planning to made some minor changes for my site! The idea is to make something similar to "nba.com" or "espn.com" where if people are using 800x600, they will not be able to view some additional info on the right side! But if they use 1024x768 or above, they will be able to view those additional images!

I believe most people use these 2 size for viewing website! Am I right? if too large, words will be too small and very hard to read!

I just want to see how many people are still using 800x600

Maybe this thread would help out.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149913&highlight=800x600+1024x768

44% are still using 800x600 ??? :eek:

1024x768 is like standard for most PC's.

Many people are still using 800x600 resolution, for different reasons. You would have to look at who you are trying to market with your site. If the target audience is mostly the younger crowd, you might be safe in going above 800x600.

Based on my experience, there are 4 reasons of why people are using that resolution:
1. they have an old monitor that does not display above 800x600
2. they are not computer savvy and don't know how to change the setting (or know there is a way to make it larger)
3. they are old(er) or have compromised vision and use the lower resolution to make it easier to read / see
4. they just like it that way (or insert random idea here)

I would say if you are trying to sell something or are gearing toward this target market, then you want to have a site that works in 800x600. If you are creating it for 1024x786, I would hope that you acutally have enough content to fill up the screen. I've seen too many sites that stretch wide, requiring 1024, but then don't even fill up half the screen vertically. If you are going mainly for young viewers with good eye sight, with a new and large monitor that knows how to change the settings ... and actually NEED that extra space to the right, then it should be fine.

Although this poll's results will be heavily skewed towards 1024x768, I wouldn't trust those results. This crowd is much more computer and web savvy than the general population. If your site has a similar audience, you're probably safe. Otherwise you might be leaving out a significant part of your audience.

I use five machines that are still on 800x600. I might make two of those 1152x864 actually.

Personally I'm running 1280x1024.

I'm still using 800x600, I have tried other resolutions but I always come back to this as it's more what I'm used to and I don't have to put my face right up to my monitor to read lol, guess I'm getting old.

1280x1024... my LCD looks like crap below it.

I haven't used 800x600, in years.

Yes, I'm old....I admit it....where's SWR when you need someone your age to console each other?

I just like the ease of reading and find no disadvantages. I do use a 19" monitor so having to scroll more isn't really a problem. In fact, just did a quick survey of the nearest monitors to me-8 out of 10 are at 800 X 600.

800x600 on a 19" monitor? :eek3:

I could read that from the other room, heh.

1280x1024 - on 17' LCD FP

800x600 suites me well, i cant see too well with 1024x768 especially when editing HTML and PHP using notepad

800x600 is clear and its just big enough for me too see

1280 x 1024

1280 x 1024 for me. :D

I design for 800x600, but I also make sure that the site scales in higher resolutions. If I'm doing a cheapo or quickie site at a fixed size, everything gets built inside a 780px wide table.

If you want to piss people off, design for 1024x768 or higher, and make them have to scroll sideways.

Personally, I like 800x600 on a 17" monitor in most situations (as do most old farts in my age group that I know personally), but will kick it to a higher resolution when working with graphics progs (photoshop, etc...)

.

Originally posted by Incognito
Yes, I'm old....I admit it....where's SWR when you need someone your age to console each other?

hey ! I'm here Incognito !
I use 800 X 600 because it's easier to read, Three quarters of my visitors use it too.

Just make your site expandable and Bob's your uncle

Dang, my dad(50) runs at no less than 1024x768 on 17"... and he can't see for beans. Has to have a different pair of glasses for driving, than for working at the computer.(Both are Bi-Focals.)

I don't wear glasses at the computer (I use them for looking up the phone book and reading the backs of CDs - they make the print smaller these days) but I have to use them at 1024X768

I'm using 1280x1024 and found out that most people at my company have their screens set even higher.

Originally posted by dgessler
1280x1024 - on 17' LCD FP A 17-foot LCD screen?? Me want :D

On my personal website about half of everybody still uses 800 x 600. Most of my visitors are not computer savvy though. The second half uses 1024 x 768. A few of them use resolutions above 1024 x 768.

I use 1280x1024 on a 19 inch screen for my main monitor, the others are 1024x768.

You've really got to design for 800x600 though. There are still too many people using that resolution to ignore it imho unfortunately.

Your idea of putting hidden content off the screen is really interesting though. Reminds me of this Jeremy Clarkson thing I once saw on British TV. He starts ranting about people who just don't get why widescreen TVs are better, then these 2 strippers come on and start taking their clothes off at the sides of the screen (so everyone without a wide screen TV can't see them and is wondering what's going on and why everyone's laughing and whistling).

What does screen resolution have to do with anything? Browsers are windows - windows can be set to any size of the user's choosing, regardless of screen resolution. Screen resolution is only a maximum, and you would be ill-advised to count on people browsing full screen to make your site work. I use a 1600x1200 monitor, and when I tile browser windows, I might have four or more, each taking up about 700x550. That is the purpose of windows, after all!

IMEO, this is a faulty question to ask when determining how to move forward with a site design. It makes some bad assumptions, the worst being that people will alter their browsing habits to suit the needs of your site.

I don't think it's a faulty question to ask myself. It really depends upon the design itself and the intended audience. How many people browse in a window - most are doing it with their browsers maximised I would say (depending on the audience ofcourse). If you want to do something a bit more sophisticated visually and need to use absolute positioning (or even relative positioning to a degree) to achieve that then you have to start thinking about the minimum screen resolution that your design is going to have to work with and start looking at audience percentages and factor that into your decision making.

If 98% of your intended audience is going to be looking at a browser window that can accomodate 800x600 and higher without scrolling sideways, are you going to compromise and limit their experience so you can accomodate the 2% that happen to decide to view your site at 320x240 or something. It all depends upon the intended audience and the nature of the site itself imho.

Until windows defaults to something other than 800x600, a lot of people will.

Also, as mentioned earlier, screen resolution doesn't equal browser window size. For example, the Mac OS X doesn't even have a maximise button (as apple did research that showed it was a hindrance rather than a help) - there's the zoom button which switches between 'user mode' and the software manufacturer's setting (this is usually self-adjusting to whatever the content size is - you won't get, for example, a word document being full screen with big grey borders to the left and right on a 19" screen - the zoom button will take the window and size it up to the contents).

I run at 1600x1200 (so much space is nice, and viewsonic's crispness is nice) and my browser window is normally between ~1000x800.


EDIT: Just realised... is this an old thread?

How many people browse in a window - most are doing it with their browsers maximised I would say (depending on the audience ofcourse).
100% of all visitors using a computer/monitor browse in a window. The question is whether or not they browser full screen, and even if they do, do they browser with lots of toolbars? Do they browse with a sidebar open? How big is that sidebar? How large are user icons?

Maybe 98% of all visitors browse full screen (though, as you can see above, this still means very little). Maybe 98% of all visitors browse in a window smaller than full screen. I don't know the answer, and I'm not willing to play roulette with my sites unless I have a definitive answer, and it's not possible to know for sure. That's why this is a silly question to ask. It makes too many assumptions about visitors' browsing habits that cannot be answered.

You are absolutely correct in saying it depends on your audience, but this is a factor of your audience that is impossible to measure (unless you're designing a site for a controlled network, or something like that).

EDIT: Just realised... is this an old thread?

EDIT: Whoops - it appears to be quite old. Ah well...

1600 x 1200 on my desktop.

Usually web sites are designed for 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 - depends on the contect, layout etc.

I do see what you're getting at, but it really depends upon the site and the audience so I don't think it's quite as simple as that.

I had a quick look through your site out of interest to see where you are coming from. In the example you use there you say that a site that is accessible for 95% of people is a failure because of the 5% you're loosing right? How if you were a regular business that would mean 1 in 20 people wouldn't be able to come into your shop.

Does that mean that it's a wise business decision to build a shopping environment that is accessible to the full 100%, at the detriment of the experience for the 95% who would otherwise have no problem.

It seems obvious at first that it would be best to cater for everyone, but while your shop might have a few people in, 90% of your customers might be down the road at the altogether funkier looking shop because it's a nicer environment for them and they enjoy being there more than at your drab surroundings (not talking about your website btw - so don't take that as an insult - just using a metaphor here to explain my point). Do they care that that environment isn't accessible to everyone? No, they care about their own experience and if they're going to get a better experience down the road that's where they'll go.

Accessibility is important in some circumstances (particularly in terms of disabled access), but it's not the be-all and end-all. Take the Ritz hotel for example. It's prices mean that it's inaccessible to everyone. What do you think would happen to their clientelle if they started doing burger and fries at McDonalds prices "anything less than 100% accessibility just isn't good enough"?

Using your own example: "I use a 1600x1200 monitor, and when I tile browser windows, I might have four or more, each taking up about 700x550. That is the purpose of windows, after all!"

Consider this:

"I use an 800x600 monitor and when I tile brower windows, I might have four or more open, each taking up about 200x200 pixels. That is the purpose of windows afterall".

At 200x200 all of the sites in your own portfolio become unusable (or at least the ones I looked at).

You really can't cater for everyone no matter how well intentioned. You can only work on probablilities. Questioning the size of the users screen isn't silly imho. It gives you a better idea of your audience and the limitations that you might ultimately have to work within.

I do see what you mean, just don't agree that it's a silly question to ask.

Does that mean that it's a wise business decision to build a shopping environment that is accessible to the full 100%, at the detriment of the experience for the 95% who would otherwise have no problem.
Absolutely not. But why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Building a wheelchair ramp for your business doesn't happen to the detriment to patron who can walk. Putting braille on elevator buttons isn't done to the detriment of people who can see. Making a site accessible for the largest possible audience doesn't have to come at a price to anyone. It's all in how you use the technology. You can put as much funk into your site as you want, and with a little planning and knowledge, you can make it as accessible as you want too. Why compromise either?

"I use an 800x600 monitor and when I tile brower windows, I might have four or more open, each taking up about 200x200 pixels. That is the purpose of windows afterall".

At 200x200 all of the sites in your own portfolio become unusable (or at least the ones I looked at).
Certainly there is a baseline expectation you're allowed to make, and the current theory on this is varied. I've heard as little as 400 px before a scroll, and I think this is an unfair measure (though sometimes attainable). I like to think you've done pretty well if you don't cause a scroll at 600. And I try to aim for 500-550, which is not always possible.

Now, if despite all the arguments against it, a client insists on a fixed design, I start the process of determining the right size by asking how much of a gamble the client is willing to take on losing visitors to browsing preferences. Some clients are comfortable with sites in the 700-750 range. Hey, who am I to deny the client what (s)he wants? This will inconvenience a lot of site visitors who rely on public Internet access, and may hamper the viewing experience of school children (k-12 in computer labs), library patrons, patrons of some Internet cafes and many people who use common workstations at their place of employment. Ok, if you're comfortable with these people experiencing some degree of difficulty with your site, you got it. Maybe the client could care less about these people. I just make sure clients understand that it's their decision to make and they understand the ramifications of their decision.

You really can't cater for everyone no matter how well intentioned.
True. There is no 100% mark you can reach, but in one's quest to reach the widest possible audience, I think you're barking up the wrong tree asking about screen resolution. I was looking at sites I visit regularly on my brother's powerbook when I went to visit him recently, and I was amazed at how silly so many sites looked. Little itty bitty strips of content - even more pronounced than when I browse fullscreen on my monitor (1350x1100 or so, with sidebar and browser buttons). You can't guess what people will like, but by allowing sites to adapt, you can let them make the decision for themselves. I've noticed a big trend toward this with my clients recently, and it's refreshing to have these conversations with people and discover they're ahead of me with their expectations.

8 x6??? k x 7??? Come ON! The nineties are over! Give us some real options!

*runs and ducks for cover*

1440 x 900 (letterbox 17" mac notebook) and 1600 x 1200

Of course I code for 800 x 600.

Originally posted by the_pm
[B]Absolutely not. But why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Building a wheelchair ramp for your business doesn't happen to the detriment to patron who can walk. Putting braille on elevator buttons isn't done to the detriment of people who can see. Making a site accessible for the largest possible audience doesn't have to come at a price to anyone. It's all in how you use the technology. You can put as much funk into your site as you want, and with a little planning and knowledge, you can make it as accessible as you want too. Why compromise either?

But websites and in particular the graphical design aspects aren't just a case of adding a wheelchair ramp or braile buttons are they? There are compromises involved, and recognising those limitations and working within them is part of the job. One of those limitations is available screen space, which will vary from audience to audience, so it's a perfectly valid question to ask of your audience so you can consider that. That's what I'm saying really.

As I said I didn't bring disabled access into that equation. The metaphor I was using was about an exclusive upmarket hotel that is quite obviously benefitting from its inaccessibility in a business sense. Far from it being a disadvantage, it's a feature of their business. By making its business accessible to all, it would loose its target audience.

Websites are no different in this respect in a number of cases.

Certainly there is a baseline expectation you're allowed to make, and the current theory on this is varied. I've heard as little as 400 px before a scroll, and I think this is an unfair measure (though sometimes attainable). I like to think you've done pretty well if you don't cause a scroll at 600. And I try to aim for 500-550, which is not always possible.

So screen resolution is an important consideration then in that case. You do know that you're excluding a lot of mobile device/pda users etc at those dimensions don't you?

You've basically set your own limits that happen to be a bit lower than the generally accepted 800x600 but you're still excluding people (albeit in an almost insignificantly smaller proportion).

Now, if despite all the arguments against it, a client insists on a fixed design, I start the process of determining the right size by asking how much of a gamble the client is willing to take on losing visitors to browsing preferences. Some clients are comfortable with sites in the 700-750 range. Hey, who am I to deny the client what (s)he wants? This will inconvenience a lot of site visitors who rely on public Internet access, and may hamper the viewing experience of school children (k-12 in computer labs), library patrons, patrons of some Internet cafes and many people who use common workstations at their place of employment. Ok, if you're comfortable with these people experiencing some degree of difficulty with your site, you got it. Maybe the client could care less about these people. I just make sure clients understand that it's their decision to make and they understand the ramifications of their decision.


That's what I'm saying really. It's all about the intended audience. What's the point of designing a site that's going to scale down effectively to fit on some wireless internet enabled digital watch at 200x200 pixels or something, if your site's content is targetted at high end designers, most of which you know from your audience analysis are going to be sitting infront of 21 inch screens running at 1048 pixels upwards?

Are they going to think ' oh...this site is accessible to everyone so I'm going to hang out here' or are they going to think 'this design sucks...I'm going to hang out at the place that looks aesthetically wonderfull and works much better and is much more USABLE for me personally because it's been designed with the sorts of screen resolutions I use specifically in mind". The latter in most cases. End users rarely think about other end users, they think about their own experience.

So the 95% isn't good enough metaphor really doesn't stand up to reason imho.

Don't take this the wrong way. I do respect your approach and it's good to see sites that are more accessible (I try to bear that in mind myself though not to quite the degree you go to yourself because I'm balancing a little more in the other direction).

My main point really is that it isn't a silly question to consider the screen resolution of your intended audience. It's a perfectly valid question to ask.


True. There is no 100% mark you can reach, but in one's quest to reach the widest possible audience, I think you're barking up the wrong tree asking about screen resolution. I was looking at sites I visit regularly on my brother's powerbook when I went to visit him recently, and I was amazed at how silly so many sites looked. Little itty bitty strips of content - even more pronounced than when I browse fullscreen on my monitor (1350x1100 or so, with sidebar and browser buttons). You can't guess what people will like, but by allowing sites to adapt, you can let them make the decision for themselves.

It's all about the audience. I agree, asking a general question about screen resolution here without looking at the audience the site would be aimed at is pretty pointless, but it's an important question in evaluating the audience that a site is aimed at and deciding upon your approach and the limitations that you need to work within.

I've noticed a big trend toward this with my clients recently, and it's refreshing to have these conversations with people and discover they're ahead of me with their expectations.

Jacob neilsens got a lot to answer for. :D

Right..I'm off to for a break then to bed. Been working far to hard today to be talking about screen resolutions in my time off :D

But websites and in particular the graphical design aspects aren't just a case of adding a wheelchair ramp or braile buttons are they?
Often times, yes, they are. On numerous occasions I've been given sites by skeptics who've said "Ok, tough guy. Make my site accessible without sacrificing its style. Now, I'm not much of a graphic designer, I'll be the first to admit that. But using existing designs, the print-screen button and a little Fireworks magic, I've had a great deal of success at least making sites scalable and adaptable without sacrificing any visual impact.

So screen resolution is an important consideration then in that case. You do know that you're excluding a lot of mobile device/pda users etc at those dimensions don't you?
Nope. By-and-large, handheld media follow a different set of rules. Many will ignore the presence of tables, most will completely ignore backgrounds and any styling characteristics that affect text. But when in doubt, media="handheld" - 'nuff said! If you know the technology, you know the rules are different for alternative browsing devices and you know how to handle them.

I've secured some very good business from a high-profile client (soon to be added to my case studies) based largely on the fact that he likes the way my work renders on his cell phone :)

'this design sucks...I'm going to hang out at the place that looks aesthetically wonderfull and works much better and is much more USABLE for me personally because it's been designed with the sorts of screen resolutions I use specifically in mind".
Again, why does a design have to suck just because it's accessible?

What's the point of designing a site that's going to scale down effectively to fit on some wireless internet enabled digital watch at 200x200 pixels or something, if your site's content is targetted at high end designers, most of which you know from your audience analysis are going to be sitting infront of 21 inch screens running at 1048 pixels upwards?
Because I believe you can satisfy the needs of both the designers with their large displays and the statistically more affluent early technology adopters who use alternative browsing technology.

So the 95% isn't good enough metaphor really doesn't stand up to reason imho.
It is when you can get into the 99%+ range ;)

Remember, just because the king of usability, Jacob "Use it" Nielsen made a site that absolutely sucks visually doesn't mean that all usable sites have to suck. God, you have no idea how much I wish he'd let a designer have a little fun with his site, maybe even offer a stylesheet switcher:

[Regular View] [Non-sucky View]

He ruins it for all of us trying to uphold those of his principles that make sense with his disgustingly unattractive site :stickout:

Right..I'm off to for a break then to bed. Been working far to hard today to be talking about screen resolutions in my time off
The secret, my friend, is to find a way to have these discussions while you're at work! :D It's always nice having good debates like these - makes everyone think a little harder about what they're doing. G'night!

I knew it! I knew this would get moved! Now we can add this discussion to the neverending list of threads on screen resolution :D

Originally posted by the_pm
Often times, yes, they are. On numerous occasions I've been given sites by skeptics who've said "Ok, tough guy. Make my site accessible without sacrificing its style. Now, I'm not much of a graphic designer, I'll be the first to admit that. But using existing designs, the print-screen button and a little Fireworks magic, I've had a great deal of success at least making sites scalable and adaptable without sacrificing any visual impact.

Yes, you're quite right. Sometimes they are, but in some cases they aren't. It all depends upon the circumstances which are going to be different with every job. So you can't make generalisations like this because audience demographics are going to vary from site to site.

There isn't a well run business in the world that completely ignores audience demographics. To do so is commercial suicide.

You're kind of missing my point though, because I wasn't really talking about disabled access (even the most visually rich site that has been designed for a large screen can be made completely useable by disabled access devices and screen readers). I'm talking about the compromises that might need to be made in certain instances to cater for all (perhaps to pick up that extra 4% you're talking about), that might ultimately make the design less attractive or even in some cases less usable for the target audience (of which that 4% isn't any significant part of to start with).

That's why I was using the Ritz metaphor. I'm sure you can understand what I'm getting at. I know Accessibility is the buzz-word and everyone's aiming towards 100% accessibility, but rarely do they question whether that's even appropriate imho.



Nope. By-and-large, handheld media follow a different set of rules. Many will ignore the presence of tables, most will completely ignore backgrounds and any styling characteristics that affect text. But when in doubt, media="handheld" - 'nuff said! If you know the technology, you know the rules are different for alternative browsing devices and you know how to handle them.

Yes, that's quite true in some cases, but times are changing. Modern PDAs come with very capable browsers (at least in relation to what came before). You also have people using sub-notebooks running regular browser applications (albeit at often quite low screen resolutions).

If they're a significant part of your audience then by all means cater for them (this is why screen resolution has to be a consideration because it defines at least one of the limits that you need to work within).


I've secured some very good business from a high-profile client (soon to be added to my case studies) based largely on the fact that he likes the way my work renders on his cell phone :)


If an important part of his target audience require that his site render well on a mobile phone, then obviously thats the way to go because you work out the limitations inherrent in delivering to that format (of which screen resolution is one concern) and you make compromises to ensure that the site will render to those devices as a minimum.

My own approach in that instance would be to separate the content from the design and produce seperate designs utilising that content, each design squarely aimed at the significant proportions of his audience demographic, rather than the one size fits all aproach. I personally think that would work better for him.


Again, why does a design have to suck just because it's accessible?


It doesn't have to suck, but it's obvious that there are more limitations that need to be worked within in certain cases, and compromises that need to be made in terms of presentation (and sometimes even function) if the same design is going to have to work on as well on a PDA as on a high res. monitor.

To ignore those limitations and compromises where they might sometimes alienate your target audience (particularly in the context of your competition) can be just as wrong as ignoring the fact that a significant proportion of your target audience is going to be using mobile devices to access your site (if that's the case).

I'm sure you would agree that if your site needs to render and be useable in a 320x240 screen that you need to make some compromises with design decisions to ensure that. If you don't find yourself having to make compromises then you're not having much of a vision of the possibilities as a designer (not talking about you in particular so don't take that the wrong way - just making a general point).

I'm really talking about whether it can conceiveably be the wrong decision to alienate your target audence by making those compromises in order to pick up that extra few percent (who mightn't be part of your target audience anyway) where there may be competitors who are targeting their designs directly at their well analysed audience demographic.

You keep avoiding the Ritz metaphor but that's exactly what I'm talking about.


Because I believe you can satisfy the needs of both the designers with their large displays and the statistically more affluent early technology adopters who use alternative browsing technology.


OK. Take a look at: http://www.k10k.net/ (a very succesful designers portal).

Tell me how you're going to fit that on a PDA screen without making compromises in presentation.

Presentation and even usability is about more than just clearly presented text and proportionally sized blocks of colour. Look at the way visual symbols, archetypes, photography and illustration plays a utilitarian role in the wider world outside of a computer screen. These considerations are equally important in terms of useability and accessibility.

Lets say you make those compromises so you can deliver it up to your 99% (an arbitrary figure imho). If only 4% of your audience of designers are going to appreciate those compromises, where are the ones who don't give a toss about that 4% going to hang out? At your site which renders perfectly on a PDA (which they don't use) but doesn't look as aesthetically pleasing on a large screen and perhaps lacks some of the utility that might be available if it'd been designed for them specifically, or K10K which has been designed with the target audience in mind?

What's the point of catering for that extra 4% if 60% of your target audience are going to take one look then contrast it to your competitor (k10k) and go there instead never to return to your site?

Even considering it from an entirely utilitarian perspective rather than just eye candy, what K10K are achieving in the screen space they use I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to fit on a PDA screen (take your time to look past the eye candy and notice how graphical elements play a utilitarian role, and notice the functional aspects that would need to be compromised if that site were expected to scale down gracefully to fit on a PDA).


Remember, just because the king of usability, Jacob "Use it" Nielsen made a site that absolutely sucks visually doesn't mean that all usable sites have to suck. God, you have no idea how much I wish he'd let a designer have a little fun with his site, maybe even offer a stylesheet switcher:

[Regular View] [Non-sucky View]

He ruins it for all of us trying to uphold those of his principles that make sense with his disgustingly unattractive site :stickout:


Jacob makes some valid points and his approaches are very vaild in a number of cases. I just think people tend to take his word as the messiah of accessibility and usability too literally in a lot of cases verging on neoreligious zealotry without really thinking for themselves and applying that knowledge where it's appropriate (which I believe is what Neilsen intends in the first place).

Your regular view/non sucky view is basically going to be concerned with separating the content from the design and delivering up a seperate design to different audiences. To do that is counter to the scalability issue that we're talking about here. K10K could no doubt produce something that rendered perfectly on a PDA screen and offer their users that alternative route with essentially the same content, but it wouldn't be the same design would it? The same content yes, but not the same design.


The secret, my friend, is to find a way to have these discussions while you're at work! :D It's always nice having good debates like these - makes everyone think a little harder about what they're doing. G'night! [/B]

:D Can't really get away with that I'm afraid :( . I've got far too much to do at the moment (that's one of the problems of working for yourself I've found, if you slack off then you're not hurting anyone but yourself unfortunately).

P.S. Hope you don't take any of that the wrong way. I can see you're making a number of very valid points in some cases. I just think it needs to be put into a wider context. It's been fun talking to you :)

Right...back to work...

Tell me how you're going to fit that on a PDA screen without making compromises in presentation.
You can start by getting rid of the unnecessary frames. Includes would be much more appropriate, and if they need that bar to remain stationary, placing the rest of the site's content into a scrolling <div> would do the trick. From there, as long as the site's elements are semantically correct, there should be no problem making this exact same design display adequately on a PDA. It'll be one hell of a long site, but it will function. Same exact design for traditional Web visitors, plus a functional site for early technology adopters - the best of both worlds.

That's why I was using the Ritz metaphor. I'm sure you can understand what I'm getting at. I know Accessibility is the buzz-word and everyone's aiming towards 100% accessibility, but rarely do they question whether that's even appropriate imho.

...

You keep avoiding the Ritz metaphor but that's exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't entirely understand the Ritz metaphor, as the Ritz caters to such a miniscule portion of the population, it is in a special class of its own. Perhaps 1/1000 people will ever have the means to visit a Ritz, and who know how many of those people will actually do so? Yes, if you're creating an online Ritz - a site with a target audience so focused and so predictable, then by all means focus your design on that audience. A gaming/clan site might be an example of a site focused in this way. A private portal would do this as well.

But going back to the original topic, the question did not specify a particular audience. It asked about people in general, and mentioned sites like nba.com or espn.com, sites that cater to a very broad online demographic, one that cannot be characterized by a propensity to use a particular browser window size, OS, OS version, browser brand or browsing device. The question was essentially about everyone who uses the Web - if that wasn't the focus of the question, it wasn't worded very well. And when you're talking about a general audience, it's dangerous to make assumptions about their browsing preferences. The Ritz can assume its patrons have certain monetary means, and it can cater to this group. ESPN.com can make one assumption - its visitors want to know about sports, and that ain't gonna tell them anything about browsing preferences.

Your regular view/non sucky view is basically going to be concerned with separating the content from the design and delivering up a seperate design to different audiences. To do that is counter to the scalability issue that we're talking about here. K10K could no doubt produce something that rendered perfectly on a PDA screen and offer their users that alternative route with essentially the same content, but it wouldn't be the same design would it? The same content yes, but not the same design.
What's wrong with that? A site's design won't look the same from browsing environment to browsing environment regardless of how hard you try to control it. The key isn't to find better ways to lock things down. The key is the find better ways to adapt. Fighting the technology upon which you rely isn't going to help you in the end - finding ways to use it to your advantage will. If you want proof of this, try specifying the browser default font size for k10k (IE, Moz. and Opera default is 16, btw). Don't even enlarge the text beyond the default size, just take it up to that point. If you'd like, I can give you a screen shot.

It's a disaster, right? Do you think there might be some designers who require or simply prefer larger text? I can name a half dozen I've worked with in the last year, older, well-established designers who have broadened their scope to Web design in addition to the print design they still do for clients. So, does this mean K10K should screw up its design for everyone else so perhaps 5% of its audience can use its site? Of course not. All they need to do is specify % instead of fixed sizes for fonts and line-heights, and everything will adapt just fine. The 95% group will see the exact same site (given the right settings), and the 5% who need to see things otherwise will be happy they can do so. There are no compromises involved - they simply have a site that works better for everyone.

It doesn't have to suck, but it's obvious that there are more limitations that need to be worked within in certain cases, and compromises that need to be made in terms of presentation (and sometimes even function) if the same design is going to have to work on as well on a PDA as on a high res. monitor.
I don't believe this one bit. I think any visual design can be made functional on alternative browsing devices, it just takes extra time and effort to make it happen. Now, many clients will tell you to make the site work on x, y and z, and that's all they care about. If this is the case, and you've done your due diligence to explain the ramifications of a decision either way, then do what your client has asked.

All things being equal, I don't think choosing a set size for a design is by any means a dealbeaker. In the world of accessible Web design, it is a very minor consideration. I've toyed with the idea of exploring some fixed width or combo fixed/fluid designs, and I may do some in the future. But it will be with the full understanding that this may inconvenience some visitors, and this inconvenience may cause them to not use the site. I'll weigh for myself whether this is a risk I want to take, but I will make it with no illusions.

Can't really get away with that I'm afraid. I've got far too much to do at the moment (that's one of the problems of working for yourself I've found, if you slack off then you're not hurting anyone but yourself unfortunately).
I put in equal time corporate and equal time independent, so I know exactly what you're talking about. I get my social balance in life by foregoing sleep :cool:

P.S. Hope you don't take any of that the wrong way. I can see you're making a number of very valid points in some cases. I just think it needs to be put into a wider context. It's been fun talking to you
Are you kidding? These types of discussions are vital in the development arena, and I'm always game for getting involved in them. I only engage in an intelligent debate with someone if I respect their expertise and point of view, and feel they are doing the same for me. I take it as a compliment that you've been willing to share your perspective in this much depth, and I hope you'll take it the same way in return :)

By the way, were you previously HONDA ACURA, the originator of this thread? I got that impression, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

I was using 800x600 up until 2 days ago myself, then decided to move up to 1024x768. It's just taken eyes some getting used to which is why I avoided it.

Originally posted by the_pm
You can start by getting rid of the unnecessary frames. Includes would be much more appropriate, and if they need that bar to remain stationary, placing the rest of the site's content into a scrolling <div> would do the trick. From there, as long as the site's elements are semantically correct, there should be no problem making this exact same design display adequately on a PDA. It'll be one hell of a long site, but it will function. Same exact design for traditional Web visitors, plus a functional site for early technology adopters - the best of both worlds.


You can perhaps present up the exact same content on a PDA (in a lot of cases anyway), but will it be the same design? I doubt it myself. I'd like to see you fit that into 320x240. Some of the graphical elements alone you wouldn't fit into 320 pixels as far as I can see. Sure you could drop those, but on a design portal, "design elements" can be kind of important wouldn't you agree?

The iFrames they're using aren't exactly unnecessary. Sure you could compromise and drop them but that would be one of the compromises that I'm talking about that you'd have to make.

With all of the money and expertise and effort behind K10K you have to ask yourself why they haven't already done that if it's such an important issue? Perhaps because they understand their audience and cater for it?

Show me a well known and respected design portal in this vein that uses the sort of design you're talking about. How active is it?

Maybe you're onto something - I can't think of one myself - there's a gap in the market for you to try out your theory :)



I don't entirely understand the Ritz metaphor, as the Ritz caters to such a miniscule portion of the population, it is in a special class of its own. Perhaps 1/1000 people will ever have the means to visit a Ritz, and who know how many of those people will actually do so? Yes, if you're creating an online Ritz - a site with a target audience so focused and so predictable, then by all means focus your design on that audience. A gaming/clan site might be an example of a site focused in this way. A private portal would do this as well.


I use it only to illustrate the point that accessibility isn't the be-all and end-all. It's all to do with demographics. I use that as an extreme and obvious example, of where making something accessible to all might have the effect of alienating the target audience (though you still seem to be missing that - I don't know another way to explain what I'm getting at because that seems like quite an obvious example to me).


But going back to the original topic, the question did not specify a particular audience. It asked about people in general, and mentioned sites like nba.com or espn.com, sites that cater to a very broad online demographic, one that cannot be characterized by a propensity to use a particular browser window size, OS, OS version, browser brand or browsing device. The question was essentially about everyone who uses the Web - if that wasn't the focus of the question, it wasn't worded very well. And when you're talking about a general audience, it's dangerous to make assumptions about their browsing preferences. The Ritz can assume its patrons have certain monetary means, and it can cater to this group. ESPN.com can make one assumption - its visitors want to know about sports, and that ain't gonna tell them anything about browsing preferences.


If you read up the thread I mentioned the pointlessness of asking about screen resolution in general terms and specifically in this thread. I just pointed out that considering screen resolution wasn't a silly concern overall and you disagreed.


What's wrong with that? A site's design won't look the same from browsing environment to browsing environment regardless of how hard you try to control it. The key isn't to find better ways to lock things down. The key is the find better ways to adapt. Fighting the technology upon which you rely isn't going to help you in the end - finding ways to use it to your advantage will. If you want proof of this, try specifying the browser default font size for k10k (IE, Moz. and Opera default is 16, btw). Don't even enlarge the text beyond the default size, just take it up to that point. If you'd like, I can give you a screen shot.


What's wrong with that is that you're then essentially talking about making two seperate designs to suit two seperate audiences, rather than compromising a single design to suit everyone. I really have no problem at all with that. But it's not quite the one-size fits all approach that you've been talking about here.

It's a disaster, right? Do you think there might be some designers who require or simply prefer larger text? I can name a half dozen I've worked with in the last year, older, well-established designers who have broadened their scope to Web design in addition to the print design they still do for clients. So, does this mean K10K should screw up its design for everyone else so perhaps 5% of its audience can use its site? Of course not. All they need to do is specify % instead of fixed sizes for fonts and line-heights, and everything will adapt just fine. The 95% group will see the exact same site (given the right settings), and the 5% who need to see things otherwise will be happy they can do so. There are no compromises involved - they simply have a site that works better for everyone.


Specifying proportional sizes and widths is in itself a compromise in some cases. It can mean losing control over the exact placement and flow of elements. That's appropriate in some cases, but not in others. Again, demographics.

Perhaps one of the reasons why you can't see my point about considering screen resolution is because you haven't done many fixed proportion/fixed placement designs. These offer you a lot more creative freedom to be sure that things will be presented exactly how you want them, but less freedom for the viewer. This is where screen resolutions come into play, considering the facilities of your audience.



I don't believe this one bit. I think any visual design can be made functional on alternative browsing devices, it just takes extra time and effort to make it happen. Now, many clients will tell you to make the site work on x, y and z, and that's all they care about. If this is the case, and you've done your due diligence to explain the ramifications of a decision either way, then do what your client has asked.


I personally think you need to exercise due dilligence and explain the ramificiations of making design compromises to make a one-size-fit's all design, as compared to one that's carefully targetted at their audience demographic.

All things being equal, I don't think choosing a set size for a design is by any means a dealbeaker. In the world of accessible Web design, it is a very minor consideration. I've toyed with the idea of exploring some fixed width or combo fixed/fluid designs, and I may do some in the future. But it will be with the full understanding that this may inconvenience some visitors, and this inconvenience may cause them to not use the site. I'll weigh for myself whether this is a risk I want to take, but I will make it with no illusions.


When you start doing that (fixed proportion designs) then what proportions are you going to use exactly? You're going to at some stage have to consider screen resolution of your audience to work out who exactly you're going to inconvenience with that approach, and what proportion of your audience they make up.


I put in equal time corporate and equal time independent, so I know exactly what you're talking about. I get my social balance in life by foregoing sleep :cool:


:D At the moment, I'm sacrificing sleep to work (which is why I really shouldn't be here arguing about screen resolutions - so this'll be my last post).


Are you kidding? These types of discussions are vital in the development arena, and I'm always game for getting involved in them. I only engage in an intelligent debate with someone if I respect their expertise and point of view, and feel they are doing the same for me. I take it as a compliment that you've been willing to share your perspective in this much depth, and I hope you'll take it the same way in return :)

I only mention it because some people can take offence when you disagree with them strongly or your dialogue can seem a bit rude. I'm glad to see that you're not one of them. It makes things more interesting. As blake said "without contraries there is no progression" - It's something I hold dear to my heart when having any discussion because even the uncomfortable ones you can learn something from.

Originally posted by the_pm
By the way, were you previously HONDA ACURA, the originator of this thread? I got that impression, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

Honestly, I really shouldn't be here arguing about all this stuff because I've got work to do. It's a discussion that I've already had before (both an internal dialogue and with other people) and while I can see your points it hasn't really changed my mind (yet anyway - always best not to close your mind to another perspective I find). If you read back up the thread I just made a little post then we got into this discussion. I can assure you that I'm not him and don't even know who the guy (or woman) is. If anything I feel a bit sorry for him because he was probably just wanting people to post numbers and his thread has ended up being hijacked by a couple of stubborn old goats who won't agree and both want to have the last word :D

By the way, you're not Jacob Neilsen are you? I got that impression, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions :rofl:

I actually did about two dozen fixed and mixed fixed/fluid designs for clients before coming to understand some of inherent drawbacks in this approach, with a great deal of professional guidance along the way (and equal parts stubborn resistance on my part - I know some people who have some stories they could tell...). From a purely selfish perspective, I've found that endorsing fluid design has brought me into a much higher-profile design arena, and my migration to fluid design is as much a product of what I've learned over the past few years as it is a client-driven agenda. I have a proposal presentation tomorrow afternoon with a large corporation that wants a peripheral site reengineered to be fluid and cross-browser compatible. They were getting too many complaints from members about the site causing horizontal scrolling on one monitor and using 1/3 of the screen on another. The site administrator was very concerned about this; she described in detail the complaints she received from visitors and her frustration with site maintenance.

Maybe I've just found a design niche, but I won't look that gift horse in the mouth!

What's wrong with that is that you're then essentially talking about making two seperate designs to suit two seperate audiences, rather than compromising a single design to suit everyone.
Give that another read. I suggested a single approach that worked well in multiple environments as the alternative to settling for an approach that works in limited browsing environments. Of course the visual design won't hold up in PDAs, but proper techniques can ensure the same visual impact for traditional browsers and a functional site for PDAs as well. K10K could make changes to its site that would allow it to be functional in other browsing devices and current visitors would never know the difference. It's all about the back-end engineering. The engineering of a site is 90% of the game. Wrapping it up in a pretty package is the easy part.

The only reason I ever suggested two sets of styles for Nielsen's site is because he could never give up his dry-toast-bland design. :)

If anything I feel a bit sorry for him because he was probably just wanting people to post numbers and his thread has ended up being hijacked by a couple of stubborn old goats who won't agree and both want to have the last word
Heh heh. Nah, we're just making absolutely, positively certain the horse is dead :D

By the way, you're not Jacob Neilsen are you? I got that impression, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions
Worse, I'm the bastard son of Nielsen! I do all his evil biddings, for which he reimburses me with a lifetime supply of Ultra Pop - http://www.ultrashock.com/404/

Originally posted by the_pm
I actually did about two dozen fixed and mixed fixed/fluid designs for clients before coming to understand some of inherent drawbacks in this approach, with a great deal of professional guidance along the way (and equal parts stubborn resistance on my part - I know some people who have some stories they could tell...). From a purely selfish perspective, I've found that endorsing fluid design has brought me into a much higher-profile design arena, and my migration to fluid design is as much a product of what I've learned over the past few years as it is a client-driven agenda. I have a proposal presentation tomorrow afternoon with a large corporation that wants a peripheral site reengineered to be fluid and cross-browser compatible. They were getting too many complaints from members about the site causing horizontal scrolling on one monitor and using 1/3 of the screen on another. The site administrator was very concerned about this; she described in detail the complaints she received from visitors and her frustration with site maintenance.

Well, that's obviously a good candidate for the sort of design that you're talking about. Good luck with that!

Client driven adgendas aren't always right though are they? I remember a few years back wasting hours trying to talk people out of flash intros that served no purpose other than to annoy and distract their visitors in some cases.

Although accessibility concerns are a bit less frivilous than this, I don't think clients who put that at the top of their priority list are really seeing the fuller picture (in some cases anyway - there are some instances where it's incredibly important obviously)

Maybe I've just found a design niche, but I won't look that gift horse in the mouth!

:D

Give that another read. I suggested a single approach that worked well in multiple environments as the alternative to settling for an approach that works in limited browsing environments. Of course the visual design won't hold up in PDAs, but proper techniques can ensure the same visual impact for traditional browsers and a functional site for PDAs as well. K10K could make changes to its site that would allow it to be functional in other browsing devices and current visitors would never know the difference. It's all about the back-end engineering. The engineering of a site is 90% of the game. Wrapping it up in a pretty package is the easy part.


The alternative isn't strictly settling for an approach that works in limited browser environments, but delivering up a design that's tailored to each significant proportion of the audience using the same content (that's separated from the design).

That seems much more flexible to me than the one size fits all approach.


The only reason I ever suggested two sets of styles for Nielsen's site is because he could never give up his dry-toast-bland design. :)


Yes, his site isn't particularly inspiring visually but then considering the content I don't think it needs to be. I think he doesn't tend to put as much emphasis on appropriate use of graphical symbolism as a method of communication as he should but I guess his approach works in some cases.


Worse, I'm the bastard son of Nielsen! I do all his evil biddings, for which he reimburses me with a lifetime supply of Ultra Pop - http://www.ultrashock.com/404/ [/B]

I had my suspicions :D

Please accept my apologies in advance if you respond and I don't reply. I've just got loads to do tonight, so can't really be spending time on this tonight (only made this post because it's in my nature to try to get in the last word :D).

Good luck with your presentation tomrrow!

This is the last word, so THERE!

:stickout:

I look forward to more discussions like these in the future. Have fun with your work - too much work is a good problem to have!

Originally posted by the_pm
This is the last word, so THERE!

:stickout:

I look forward to more discussions like these in the future. Have fun with your work - too much work is a good problem to have!

Yeah, can't complain. It's a cool project I'm doing at the moment so it doesn't really feel much like work either (well, except for the part where I'm trying to get some perfectly valid css working in Internet Explorer but I won't bore you with that).

Right...Can a moderator please close this thread immediately before he has a chance to respond :D