| G JONES |
 |
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 78
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
| |
| Quote: | | Can I ask what monitor screen size you have and what resolution you operate in? How long have you had the monitor? |
That varies - laptop / 15" / 17" at 1024 x 768 usually - not really relevant - I'm afraid this is one of my "hobby horses" - I think there are a few people still using a varied selection of monitors and screen resolutions - and when you design to a particular monitor size and resolution - you can easily make it difficult for some users - maybe not the "Target" users - they may be more "up to date" - if you are not worried about those few people that are using less than the "optimum equipment" then that's ok...
I know it's not easy - especially with Internet explorer causing so many problems too  
I usually find it is the use of a wide "header" image that causes most problems - and "Tables" - which I try to avoid using as much as possible - especially for layout purposes....
| Quote: | | We haven't done so no. I suspect the results won't be pretty. |
Indeed... 
| Quote: | | Validation may come later. |
I guess a lot of people would say not necessary - 'fraid I'm not one of them...  - I always like to think it gives you a good benchmark to aim at....
I'm afraid I've not checked it in "Exploder" - I will not use it on my main system - and only have it loaded on another system used specifically for testing purposes...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
| |
Hi,
We haven't developed for one particular resolution, however we have set a lower limit on what will work well with the new design. A width of 768 is that lower limit and we think that's reasonable base to start from. After an initial (small) scroll all content is available on screen.
I'm afraid IE users still make up a very large portion of the people who visit us so they are a priority. That brings with it the need for hacks/fixes. Especially as our new layout is very CSS heavy.
Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated 
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme 
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gpk |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
| |
I guess G JONES is advocating a variable width template/theme such as used at www.drupal.org.uk , which is supposed to fit within a 1024 width screen (the basic content width is 980px) - not bad for a 3 col layout. The template here seems to be about 1090px wide, and even allowing for the fact that not being able to see the RH margin/grey shading wouldn't be a problem you probably still need a screen width approaching 1100 to avoid horizontal scrolling.
Getting phpBB and the main site pages to work within a variable width template would I guess be possible but not necessarily easy. Life's a compromise .. 
mod edit - fixed link
_________________
http://www.alexoria.co.uk • Increasing the value derived from information technology |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
| |
| gpk wrote: |
Getting phpBB and the main site pages to work within a variable width template would I guess be possible but not necessarily easy. Life's a compromise .. |
Working yes, but looking good... probably not. What you end up doing is moving everything to percentages, getting it looking good at one resolution but not so good at others (and perhaps even ridiculous at higher resolutions)!
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gpk |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
| |
>moving everything to percentages
But you can specify minimum widths in px, this works well for sidebars. And with the ability to increase/decrease font sizes easily in different browsers, plus the different ways that Ff2/Ff3/IE7 handle this ... the whole thing is a nightmare! And if phpVV likes to spit out its stuff in tables .. 
But I am still seeing 25% of visitors with screen width of 1024 - you might want to bear this in mind..
_________________
http://www.alexoria.co.uk • Increasing the value derived from information technology |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
| |
| gpk wrote: |
But I am still seeing 25% of visitors with screen width of 1024 - you might want to bear this in mind.. |
I must stress that the site isn't unusable at this screen width, the user just needs to scroll a very small amount to the right and then all content is visible.
80% of our visitors have a width larger than 1024, it seems incorrect to me to make the site tiny (and therefore less usable) for the majority who are running these higher resolutions.
Is there a reliable browser side way of detecting resolutions?
Thanks,
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| BrightEyesDavid |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Cologne, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
| |
Horizontal scrolling required at 1024x768 - not good.
If 20% of your browsers don't have larger screen resolution widths than 1024, every two in ten visitors are going to be rather less than impressed, and that's an enormous number of people and potential customers. Publishing on the web is about catering to as much of your audience as possible. If you want to take advantage of width, look at using fluid layouts .
I'd also suggest your layouts could do with being more open and simple - they're looking a little cluttered, particularly the home page.
_________________
David Oliver - Web and print design |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
| |
Thanks for your feedback.
If a fluid layout could somehow give us consistency we'd jump on it however I don't see how it can? We want the site to look the same white space and layout wise across all browsers and platforms. If we make things variable to accommodate smaller resolutions we sacrifice the consistency we're looking for and we also end up making the layout look worse for the majority of our visitors. I note the example fluid site has no images to accommodate in its layout.
The text overload on the home page is a business necessity I'm afraid.
One thing that might be possible is to detect 1024x768 and centre the page in a different way so no scrolling is necessary. Or we can force the width to be a max of 1024 and see what happens to the layout.
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| BrightEyesDavid |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Cologne, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
| |
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | If a fluid layout could somehow give us consistency we'd jump on it however I don't see how it can? We want the site to look the same white space and layout wise across all browsers and platforms. |
Give up chasing that rainbow right now .
As users have different resolutions and will use their browser windows differently, let them dictate how they receive your content. Work with them instead of forcing your perceived ideal onto them.
Even if rendering issues and browser element differences were not in existence, the web is not a place for pixel perfect designs which look the same for everyone. That's the major difference between print and web. Things are not supposed to look the same for everyone, because everyone (their OS, fonts, browsers, resolutions and windows) is different.
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | If we make things variable to accommodate smaller resolutions we sacrifice the consistency we're looking for and we also end up making the layout look worse for the majority of our visitors. |
As noted, the web is for data, not slides. Pages are documents, not flat pices of paper. Visual style can be consistent without being exactly the same.
Screen Resolutions and Better User Experience
If you're going to work to a fixed with, anything over 1000px is not a good choice as borne out by your statistics and comments in this thread. If you don't want larger screen users to suffer because of those still on 1024 screens, fluid is the way to go. If your design is not one that can work in a fluid environment, perhaps you need to rethink the design.
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | I note the example fluid site has no images to accommodate in its layout. |
Indeed, as it's only to show the markup and CSS. With a bit of planning and careful attention to what goes where, images don't have to be a problem .
I use a 1920x1200 screen, but often have the window around 1000px simply because it makes for a more comfortable browsing experience and I have other things taking up screen space, too.
Hope I don't sound harsh - just want the best host I've ever used to have as good a site as possible.
_________________
David Oliver - Web and print design |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
| |
Well we can see what we can do. I think most pages will fit into a lesser width, the front page however will not and may need major work.
I would say that:
| Quote: |
As users have different resolutions and will use their browser windows differently, let them dictate how they receive your content. Work with them instead of forcing your perceived ideal onto them. |
Is unrealistic for all but the simplest designs in my opinion.
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| BrightEyesDavid |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Cologne, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
| |
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: |
Well we can see what we can do. I think most pages will fit into a lesser width, the front page however will not and may need major work.
I would say that:
| Quote: |
As users have different resolutions and will use their browser windows differently, let them dictate how they receive your content. Work with them instead of forcing your perceived ideal onto them. |
Is unrealistic for all but the simplest designs in my opinion. |
Not sure what you mean, Andrew. Did you try resizing your browser with the @media Ajax example above?
Visitors being served content, well presented to them in a form which is readable and usable without barriers in their way such as annoying scrollbars is fundamental to the web.
_________________
David Oliver - Web and print design |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NetHosted - Andrew |
|
NetHosted Staff
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 7217
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
| |
| ImpelGD wrote: |
Not sure what you mean, Andrew. Did you try resizing your browser with the @media Ajax example above?
Visitors being served content, well presented to them in a form which is readable and usable without barriers in their way such as annoying scrollbars is fundamental to the web. |
The BBC has scroll bars for resolutions less than 1024 in width and they have a duty to be accessible. I don't think fixed widths are inherently wrong. We'll see what we can with regards to accommodating 1024 without scroll bars.
Thanks,
Andrew
_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us! Affiliate Scheme
| Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/nethosted
| Members, tell us what you think of NetHosted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| BrightEyesDavid |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Cologne, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
| |
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | The BBC has scroll bars for resolutions less than 1024 in width and they have a duty to be accessible. |
But not scrollbars at 1024 in width.
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | I don't think fixed widths are inherently wrong. |
Agreed.
_________________
David Oliver - Web and print design |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gpk |
|
NetHosted Customer
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
| |
Useful resizing widgets:
http://www.zeldman.com/goodies/
Customise ad lib.
Something Google Analytics doesn't tell you of course is the actual browser window width ... I hardly every use a browser maximised ...
_________________
http://www.alexoria.co.uk • Increasing the value derived from information technology |
|
| Back to top |
|
| UserFriendly |
|
Community Liason
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 213
Location: Nottingham
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
| |
| NetHosted - Andrew wrote: | | The text overload on the home page is a business necessity I'm afraid. |
Increasing the line height of the first paragraph & testimonials might improve things there a little. You could also consider fully justifying the text. I understand what you say about it being a "business necessity" but the front page does seem a little spammy.
Most of my sites are variable width. However, I've always felt like I'm going against the flow when designing them. Fixed width layouts are much simpler to design and you also get the benefit of reliably readable line-widths. I personally would stick to 960 pixels maximum width , but you have to compromise no matter what your choice. I wouldn't want to be the one to convert the NetHosted website to variable width.
All in all I really like the improvements you've made to the site.
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
User Permissions |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
Client Support
