Screen size and resolution?

[Toby A Inkster]

Who would want a resolution that size anyway? Going from 800x600 to
1024x768, decreases what was the size of say a dialog box, to the point
where you have to increase the font size to read it.
So with 3200x1200, you'd have to 30 point fonts to do the work of 10 points.
As 10 points would need a magnifying glass.

So what? It's not as if you have to pay extra money for 30 point fonts, is
it?

Besides, that would be technically 3200x2400 not 3200x1200.

Huh? A dual-monitor display, each monitor running at 1600x1200 will give a
3200x1200 display.

Also, there is no rule that says width by height resolution ratios *have*
to be 4:3. Some recent Macs use 16:9 (widescreen) IIRC.

 

[Michael Fesser]

Chances are the visitor will have 1024x768 and very few with anything
lower.

Ever thought of portable devices with small displays? Probably not.

Micha

 

[Michael Fesser]

Who would want a resolution that size anyway?

Developers, desktop publishers, graphic artists ...

Besides, that would be technically 3200x2400 not 3200x1200.

man dual-head

3200 x 1200 = 2 * (1600 x 1200)

Micha

 

[PeterMcC]

anything >> lower. Of course you can detect the resolution, but who
cares?

the > smaller the proportion of the user's screen that's likely to
be occupied > by his browser window.

huh?

So if you have 200" screen, the browser will only be shown in 100" of
it perhaps?

With a 10" screen the browser is likely to be maxed to get as much in the
space-limited browser as possible whilst, with a 21" screen, the browser is
likely to be in a less than maxed window so that the user can get other
windows open on the desktop. Hence, the larger the screen, the less the
likelihood of its being fully occupied by a single application window.

 

[PeterMcC]

rf! wrote:
3200x1200 > desktop? No? Well, dont assume such things for others.
It is the height > of arrogance to suggest that a viewers system is
inadequate to display a > web page.

Who would want a resolution that size anyway? Going from 800x600 to
1024x768, decreases what was the size of say a dialog box, to the
point where you have to increase the font size to read it.
So with 3200x1200, you'd have to 30 point fonts to do the work of 10
points. As 10 points would need a magnifying glass.
Besides, that would be technically 3200x2400 not 3200x1200.

The above only holds true if you assume a fixed size of screen.
The text is indeed half the height if you compare material at resolutions
800x600 and 1600x1200 on similar sized monitors. If you were to look at a
page at 800x600 on a 10" monitor and at 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor, the
texts would be the same height.

My assumption would be that anyone who was using a res of 3200x1200 would be
doing so because they had increased the size of their monitor. A 4:3
1600x1200 monitor will show text at exactly the same size as an 8:3
3200x1200 monitor.

 

[PeterMcC]

Lots of different opinions I see
But still no conclusive answer about whether it's 800x600 or 1024x768
Does anybody know of a reliable source / stats site with this
information? Thanks,

There is no source of stats that is reliable and there is no conclusive
answer. Even if there were, it wouldn't be relevant to web design.

Please have a look at the link that's been provided several times:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

 

[kchayka]

Who would want a resolution that size anyway? Going from 800x600 to
1024x768, decreases what was the size of say a dialog box, to the point
where you have to increase the font size to read it.

There are lots of folks who want to use those higher resolutions. Just
because a higher resolution doesn't tickle your particular fancy doesn't
mean nobody should be doing it. It's actually a big productivity plus.
BTW, everything at your typical 800x600 on a 17-inch display looks
enormous to me - the first thing I'd want to do is bump up the screen
size.

So with 3200x1200, you'd have to 30 point fonts to do the work of 10 points.

Not necessarily, it depends on the physical monitor size. For example,
there is a huge difference between how 1280x1024 is perceived on a
17-inch monitor vs a 21-inch monitor.

As 10 points would need a magnifying glass.

Duh, that's one reason why you shouldn't use absolute units for font
sizes.

 

[rf]

rf! wrote:

I see everybody else has pre-empted my rebut however, to confirm all their
surmises, here is the truth:

Who would want a resolution that size anyway?

I am not some kid with a browser, I am a hardware/software developer. I
have: (a compiler/debugger application and a target debugee application)
times three; a chip firmware design application; a PCB CAD design
application; the MSDN reference viewer; a couple of browser applications;
and, currently, a newsreader. All of these are running at the same time. I
have actually run out of space on my desktop, some of the above applications
are farmed out to a couple of spare computers.

Going from 800x600 to
1024x768, decreases what was the size of say a dialog box, to the point
where you have to increase the font size to read it.

Never heard of BIG screens? Never heard of high resolution screens?

So with 3200x1200, you'd have to 30 point fonts to do the work of 10 points.
As 10 points would need a magnifying glass.

Nope. With BIG screens it's fine, except if some bonehead web author decides
my font size should be 80%.

Besides, that would be technically 3200x2400 not 3200x1200.

Never heard of dual displays I see. My desktop *is* 3200x1200. In fact, the
OS allows up to nine displays on the one system.

Once again, you have got it totally wrong. Well, perhaps not actually wrong
but certainly not real-world.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Sid Ismail]

: > Lots of different opinions I see
: > But still no conclusive answer about whether it's 800x600 or 1024x768
: > Does anybody know of a reliable source / stats site with this information?
:
: No. There is no *reliable* source for this information. If you want
: an unreliable source, 20% of each, 20% of something else, and the
: other 40% flexible to justify your decision.


21%, 21%, and the rest the rest.

Sid

 

[Jean-Marc Rousset]

Thanks Barefoot Kid,
Finally a clear cut answer. Too bad most techies can't make a clear choice.
To those folks: I know there are technical difficulties, but I would say
that sooner or later, you *have* to make a choice.
That was my question. Thanks for all the replies.

Jean-Marc

 

[PeterMcC]

Thanks Barefoot Kid,
Finally a clear cut answer. Too bad most techies can't make a clear
choice. To those folks: I know there are technical difficulties, but
I would say that sooner or later, you *have* to make a choice.
That was my question. Thanks for all the replies.

As a non-techie, can I ask what the choice is between, what you chose, and
what the consequences of that choice are for your design?

 

[Barry Pearson]

Thanks Barefoot Kid,
Finally a clear cut answer. Too bad most techies can't make a clear
choice. To those folks: I know there are technical difficulties, but
I would say that sooner or later, you *have* to make a choice.
That was my question. Thanks for all the replies.

[snip]

Chuckle! Don't blame "techies"!

Some people have strong views about the way people should exploit the web.
"Avoid tables for layout". "Don't build pages for specific viewport sizes".
It is easy to press one of their hot-buttons. Behind those views are some good
objectives. Eg. avoiding unnecessary barriers for disabled people. Maximise
your audience. Providing maximum flexibility for future site development.

But these objectives are not always appropriate, and/or cannot always be
achieved. Sometimes a simple layout-table is probably the best method for a
particular page. Sometimes you have to develop content with a specific size in
pixels. And then, as you say, you *have* to make a choice.

You are the one who lives with the consequences of your decision. What you
probably really need is help understanding the options & their consequences.
Not to be pushed down a path that is inappropriate for you. The problem is
that this sometimes admits that there *are* sensible alternatives!

 

[Richard Clark]

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:21:01 +0100
Subject: Screen size and resolution?

We are in the process of developing a web site and are not sure about what
screen size & resolution to use. Any suggestions?

Wow! Dozens of messages already. I have a few questions. What is your target
audience? (mostly French?) What kind of content? Mostly text? Mostly graphics?
You did not include a URL of any pages that we could view to see what you are
trying to do and how it finally turns out.

Is it safe to assume that *most* people have 15" screens in 800 x 600 ?
Or 1024 x 768 ?

(Most "people" are not on the web yet.

About 7 percent of web users have 13" at 640x480 or less.

("Less" includes WebTV, hand held, braille bumps or VOX, text-only browsing,
web phones; and there are even browsers built into the door of refrigerators so
people can connect to a web site on the other side of the planet when they get
a midnight snack, and go back to sleep all warm and cuddly with the assurance
that they finally know the price of tea in China!

Currently, (until after the present shopping season
Most web users have 13" at 800x600 or better.
At least one third have 15" at 1024x768 or better.
(Most web page developers have 17" at 1024x768 or better.)
Most new computer users have 1024x768 or better. (After they figure out how to
change it from the current off the shelf 800x600 setting.

Also, how do you handle the browser's toolbars at the top, knowing it may
take some screen space ?

Your primary concern should be to make sure the content fits on the screen from
left to right, as much as possible. For example, one of the pages I viewed
recently with my screen set to 640x480, had a table forcing the display to
nearly 800. There was a left hand column of about 150 pixels with links or
whatever, and the remaining text area to the right. I only had to slide the
horizontal scroll bar ONCE to be able to see the whole width of the text area.
That's acceptable. But a text area that is wider than the -whole- display area,
is very annoying, since you have to continually slide the scroll bar left and
right for -each- line of text. Not a Happy Camper!

Now, as for the browser's toolbars and such like. Most web users operate their
browsers with the default configuration. For instance, the AOL toolbar has both
icons and text beneath, (which can be modified to show only the text name of
the toolbar function, thereby increasing the height of the web page display
area.) MSIE can display icons without text, and you can also combine toolbar,
address bar, and links bar side by side, instead of one above the other. You
can display, or not display things like the status bar at the bottom (and hide
the Windows taskbar at bottom). In MSIE you can press F11 to switch to full
screen mode, which only has a single 16pixel (default height) combined menu and
navigation bar at the top. You lose about 20 pixels with the right scroll bar.
And not all people surf with browser maximized. And keep in mind that the AOL
menu/toolbar stuff usually displays on TOP of any other content. Which means
that if you use script to open a Pop-Up window and don't set the window "top"
value to 100px or lower, the upper part can end up UNDER the AOL top stuff.
(Ctrl-F4 to zap Pop-Ups.

In summary then, with browser maximized:
MSIE can subtract as much as 172 vertical pixels.
AOL can subtract as much as 186 vertical pixels.
NN (if memory serves) loses almost as much as IE.
WebTV only has a 544x372 page display area. (Graphics are shrunk to fit.)

Can you detect the user's resolution?

If I wanted to - with script - sometimes. The percentage of people browsing
with script turned off is increasing. Resolution does not tell you how much of
the screen space is actually available for the web page itself. If you want to
display higher resolution graphics for people with larger than 544x372 page
area, allow for the various toolbars - And -if- an image needs to be larger
than the display area, try to size it so it is either wider -OR- higher, but
not both. People don't like to be forced to use both vertical and horizontal
scroll to view things. A tall multi column chart with headers needs to have the
header information repeat every so often down the page, (for people that can't
remember what the first sign of senility is.

But still no conclusive answer about whether it's 800x600 or 1024x768
Does anybody know of a reliable source / stats site with this information?

The conclusive answer is most "people" with LESS than 1024x768.

From: "Barefoot Kid" <[email protected]> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
according to this 49% at 1024 or greater and 44% at 800

The w3schools stats only prove that most web page developers use 1024+. And
their biased stats from a page counter site only go up to July. The trend shows
the percentage of 800 going down and 1024 going up, (and non-graphics browsing
going up somewhat.)

(Statistics from people advertising the latest and greatest hardware and
software will ALWAY$ indicate that you need to buy their new version!


Pilgrims and the Mayflower Compact
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/pilgrims.htm

Jesus' Birth (and related issues)
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/birth_JC.htm