New web pages...

On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:48:44 +0100, "David klyne" enlightened us thusly:

and he might want to leave it as is so that people still using 800x600 monitors can see it without having to scroll all over the place.

nice looking site, keep it simple, is my motto. If I get it together to earn some money, those brake upgrades look nice.

one of my pet hates at the moment is people getting new digital cameras and posting a snapshot of something on the web, in 2000x1500 pixel size and about a megabyte big. No need for it, and I bet 80% of the intended audience have to re-size it in order to be able to see it all. my guideline for ordinary webpics is that they should fit in an 800x600 window and be compressed down to about 100KB, so they load nice and quickly even on a slow link.

I'm not saying there's no reason to ever post large pictures at full quality, just that at least 95% of the time it's a waste of time.

just my ?0.02 worth...

In news:jbFBc.18271$ snipped-for-privacy@stones.force.net, David klyne expelled:

Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size. Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).

It is important for any site to work (i.e. no horizontal scroll bars etc) at

800x600 but it is no longer true to say that 800x600 is by far the most popular. 1024x768 and 800x600 are pretty close now, with the higher resolution possibly nudging in front. This is largely due to the number of flat screens being delivered with new PC's - prior to these most PCs shipped set to 800x600 and most people never bothered change resolution - even with a 198'' monitor.

Stats are available all over the place, and they never agree, but take it from me 800x600 is not the dominent force it used to be (but is still very important)

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:45:48 +0000 (UTC), "PR" enlightened us thusly:

I use 1280x960. But my website is OK on 1024x768, and probably OK on

800x600 although not specifically set up for it.

If I had the pennies, I'd have a 19" monitor and run it at 1600x1200, probably. But then I always drive the buggers as hard as I can without getting into flickering territory, as I hate flicker in a monitor. 75Hz refresh minimum...

Although I agree with the idea of designing for compatibility with

800x600, based on the stats for my site (see below) I would disagree with your comment that 800x600 "is by far the most common resolution used". It is equally irritating to those of us who run high resolution (I run 1920x1440) and try to view a website which doesn't scale and has been designed purely for 640x480.

Apr 04

1024x768 58.9 % 1152x864 14.7 % 800x600 8.4 % 1280x1024 5.2 % 2048x1536 4.2 % Others 8.4 %

May 04

1024x768 45.2 % 800x600 24.8 % 1600x1200 11.4 % 1280x1024 9.5 % 1152x864 3.1 % Others 5.7 %

June 04

1024x768 55.4 % 800x600 16.2 % 1152x864 13.5 % 1280x1024 6.7 % 1600x1200 5.4 % Others 2.7 %

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:54:43 +0100, Phil Gardiner enlightened us thusly:

[snip]

stats show 1024x768 as the most common by far, I'd think it reasonable these days to make websites which are designed at that size. Scaling is another matter, mind. 's much more difficult to make a website which adjusts correctly when people zoom the text, for example.

Although I use 1024x768 screens all the time, I much prefer to see web pages at 800x600, as I dont want to run the web browser at full screen. I like to have the other windows lurking in the background.

Just my preference...

cheers

simon

As I have said in an earlier post - 800x600 is no lonnger the dominating force (i.e. I agree with you) - but these stats you quote are utter rubbish in so far as they dont relate to average users.

800x600 is still pretty close to 1024x768 in "typical use" and I have NEVER seen anyone use 2048x1536 which according to those stats is 50% as common as 800x600 which I see at different clients every day of the week.

Stats can prove anything - but these stats have not come from a fair cross sample of typical users. - only 1 in 12 using 800x600 is a joke.

The reason that 800x600 was so dominent is simply that most PC's with CRT screens left the factory set to 800x600 and most people never changed them no matter what they were capable of. Now many PC's are shipping with flat screens and these are more often than not set to 1024x768 and indeed may not render lower resolutions well.

Yes - it is perfectly true to say that most people viewing at 800x600 are using full-screen windows, where as many viewing at higher resolutions are not viewing with full screen windows.

Designing any site that is not easily useable (no horizontal scroll bars) at

800x600 (viewed in full size window) is folly - and I have been using 1024x768 or higher for 10 years!

In news:cbckno$mjq$ snipped-for-privacy@titan.btinternet.com, PR expelled:

Ok - I've just run the logs for a couple of sites I have admin access to. 2 years ago it was a 50% 800x600,. 40% 1024x768 split, now it's reversed, but

40% of visitors 800x600 support is important for 40% of visitors. One of these sites has 15K+ unique visits every month, the other

In a slightly different note, mainly because I haven;t got a clue about what most of you are on about!, remember that some of us can;t get broadband even if we wanted it!! We simply can't have it - and getting the 500 intterested names is also going to be aproblem as we only have 300 phone numbers going through our our BT eschange!! Dial-up lives on - even if only in the middle of nowhere!!

David LLAMA 4x4

BT have dropped that system, though it may not be any advantage to you, and are rolling out Broadband generally. The interest levels under the old system will have some effect on the timing for specific exchanges, and there are still going to be rural customers too far from an exchange.

David_LLAMA 4x4 ( snipped-for-privacy@llama4x4.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Yes, you can. Every single computer owner in the UK *can* get broadband, even on an otherwise uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere.

Satellite broadband is an option, albeit not a cheap one - around £100/month for a 512kb connection, plus a grand and a half for installation

- but it *DOES* exist.

Google is your friend on suppliers.

And it will do for a long time yet.

BT scrapped the pre-registration scam (sorry, scheme) months ago.

Indeed, and to an extent the debate about screen resolution is of no real consequence as accessibility is a much broader issue. See:

And check your site with Bobby:

On or around Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:30:20 +0100, "David_LLAMA 4x4" enlightened us thusly:

ditto here. although they want 150 names here, current score is about 30...

hmmm. wonder if they actually check... could register all the phone numbers...

On or around Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:10:33 +0100 (BST), snipped-for-privacy@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

now that's something I didn't know. I'm not actually too displeased with the 64Kb ISDN dialup, I'm just pissed off that it costs considerably more than broadband, albeit in fact, for 512Kb contended at 50:1, the actual guaranteed max service I get from this'n (128Kb) is in fact better.

With Zen I've never had contention problems. If you clock a download and work out the throughput, it's reliably 512Kbps, providing of course the thing at the other end is up to it.

David

I hope websites don't start relying on the high speed.

I think the big advantage is that the connection is always live, without tying up a phone line that could be used for a voice call. Unless you do want live video, I don't think contention will be a problem for most of us. Start a file download, and leave it to run.

(We drive Land Rovers -- we're not the sort of people who hurry)