[Stickman]

I wouldn't mind if I had one of those scrollball jobbies, but my wheel doesn't go sideways. So no.

Neilsen can fuck a dog.

[weldo]

while sucking my cock.

[LadynRed]

Sorry, but I hate it as do most people I know , work with and watch as they surf, and it is generally frowned upon. Neilsen is, as you say, totally anal and I rarely agree with his missives and rants.

1680x 1050 ??? I'd go blind trying to read at that resolution !

[dklimke]

The Vivabit site looks nice on my 1600x1200 but my poor 12" ibook still can't do more than 1024x768 I an't wait for high-res small apple laptops

[pgo]

Originally Posted by LadynRed

1680x 1050 ??? I'd go blind trying to read at that resolution !

Even though I just bought the FPW2005, I'm considering buying the 2405, which runs at 1920x1200.

[Narate]

Yeh Im runnig 1680 x 1050 which is probably the reason all my websites are too wide because 800 looks so puney on my screen its unreal

[Dusteh]

I had a client still running in 640x480 last year, I kid you not.

[boggler]

Originally Posted by LadynRed

1680x 1050 ??? I'd go blind trying to read at that resolution !

That's only because people keep writing websites for 800x600 and using tiny text.

Think about the layout and make it work from 640x480 to 1600x1200. Anyway its the canvas size that you write for which isn't necessarily full screen.

[Scott]

Generally I see people using 1024x768. My college uses 800x600 still though.

I’m on 1280x1024 at home lovely

As for side scrolling - not when the content is going down the page and you have to scroll to the side to view the rest. But when its part of the design I think it works well.

Just busy with a site which is all horizontal - looks pretty neat.

[boggler]

If web designers would write stuff that worked at high resolution then everybody would be using it. As it is when you use high resolution sites generally disappear up to the top left corner or become a stripe along the top half or left hand side of the screen. It's like everybody in the world having top of the range high fi sytems and the shops selling nothing but 78's.

[Dusteh]

What are you talking about, a large proportion of users still have monitors that cannot physically handle a resolution higher than 1024x768. Neither my work or home PC can go higher than 1280x1024.

[5P4C3]

Originally Posted by Dusteh

Yeah, min-max-width is the future.

Didn't think this worked in Internet Explorer?

[sema4]

800x600 is still the norm for all of our sites. Getting very close to making the full-time jump to 1024x768 for content-rich sites that justify it though.. a lot of the big boys are starting to do it.

[boggler]

Originally Posted by Dusteh

What are you talking about, a large proportion of users still have monitors that cannot physically handle a resolution higher than 1024x768. Neither my work or home PC can go higher than 1280x1024.

I didn't say it should only work at high resolution, I just said it should work at high resolution, i.e. use the whole screen instead of just a small rectangle inside the screen. It is possible to write sites that cover a whole range of window sizes - if you look through the "great designs" section you'll find several examples. If people keep writing stuff that's fixed at 800x600 what's the use of people buying systems that can show 6 times that area? Sites should work from 800x600 upwards (or preferably 640x480 upwards).

[gavsstudio]

aren't you all assuming that everyone maximises their windows to fill the screen? I hardly ever, if never read a webpage full screen. for me the bbc site is the perfect size.

[boggler]

Well if you look back a bit I made exactly that point. If you're using a Mac it doesn't automatically whack you up to full screen anyway. My point is that its possible to make a site look natural at a whole range of window sizes.

The BBC site is an 800 pixel wide stripe down left hand side of my window. I'd prefer it to use my wholw window so I don't have to bother scrolling so much.

In fact you don't have to go anywhere to find an example of a website that works from 800x600 upwards - you're already looking at one.

[Dusteh]

ah yes I misunderstood you, we are in complete agreement.

Max-width works in IE, its just min-width that doesn't, you can cheat around it by using a certain sized div or image, or of course just let the site keep on shrinking in IE

[LadynRed]

That's only because people keep writing websites for 800x600 and using tiny text.

No, mostly it's because I'm 20-25 years older than the 20-30 somethings that are hawking such huge resolutions and my bi-focals don't magnify !!

The baby boomers are nearing retirement age and they are a huge population, you can't ignore them. Older people will up the text size on sites with teeny tiny type - but then far too many young'uns are still using fixed font sizes and a crappy browser (IE) that cannot re-size them. If the type is too small and hurts my eyes, I don't care if what you're selling on your site is exactly what I want - I'm going to go somewhere where I can READ the content without giving myself a headache from eye strain. I use FireFox, I can scale the text if I want to, but then an awful lot of poorly designed site layouts break like a trashed puzzle when you do that.

[pgo]

If people keep writing stuff that's fixed at 800x600 what's the use of people buying systems that can show 6 times that area?

Exaggerate much? God, why should I even buy a computer - all they're good for is checking my MySpace! "Fuck, Timmy's blog about his difficulties with pimples and 14 year old girls doesn't work on my new computer because there's some blank space at the sides FUCK YOU DELL I WANT MY MONEY BACK!" Give me a break.

6 times 800x600 is 4800x3600 (or, if you just want to talk about areas, 6 times 800x600 is 2.8 million pixels, which is more screen space than a 24" widescreen LCD at 1920x1200). No measurable population uses that resolution. Just like no measurable population uses 640x480.

If web designers would write stuff that worked at high resolution then everybody would be using it.

Wrong again. All my fixed-width sites work at high resolution. Sure there's blank space around them, but so what? I think you have a whole set of misconceptions regarding who users are, how they use the web, and the sorts of computers that people buy.

Most people don't run at resolutions higher than 1024x768. In fact, most computers ship with monitors that run at that resolution by default. Most people don't change it.

This site scales, yes. And that's great, but at 1280x1024 (at work) maximized, the lines of text are a bit too long and difficult to read quickly. I can't imagine what it would look like maximized at home (1680x1050) - utterly unreadable.

It's not like fixed-width sites don't work at higher resolutions - it's that they don't scale.

But you don't lay your newspaper down on a table and say, "Damn, I wish this paper scaled to will the table - there's all this empty space!" Or do you?

Yes, I know the web isn't print, but it's just an analogy.

[weldo]

Originally Posted by boggler

In fact you don't have to go anywhere to find an example of a website that works from 800x600 upwards - you're already looking at one.

I think I'm right on saying Oli's only recently made this work at 8 x 6 - it was fixed too high for that a few weeks ago ... so its still a consideration for that particular web designer (and i commend him !!)

Most web users aren't designers.
We must work for them, as much as we try to please ourselves.

This thread is getting well boring now. Remind me not to look at it again ...