What is the default resolution for a web site ? Any method to make the site suitable for all resolution ?
None, everyone uses different screen resolutions and browser sizes. Use em and % instead of px - so it grows depending on your font size and browser size/
This is an option (fluid design) Personally I prefer fixed, but it depends (forums fixed at 800px would piss me off, yet if your site has not much content, I'd rather have it at 800px) If you are making a site for old people, you'd be stupid to not be compatible with 800x600 given how many use older PC's. If you're making a site for the latest hardcore game, then you could assume its safer to not worry about 800x600 as most would have high-end machines.
I think newer computers like mine use 1280X800 and the next step down uses 1024X768. I'd suggest trying 1024X768 but that can make designing a whole lot harder if you are not used to that screen resolution.
This seems to be the age old question, and debate for that matter. I design at 1024X768. UNLESS I send a rough draft to a client and they freak out saying they have scroll bars all over the place, then I either change it to 800x600 or attempt to introduce them to 1024X768, which leads me to having to explainnnn resolution to them, which sometimes seems like a head ache, but I'd much rather give them some knowledge then to design all my stuff at a nearly blind persons 800x600.. Using % doesn't give me as much control as far as design goes, but for those more corporate looking sites that don't require too much flair, I use %..
I recommend making your web-site's width 900-1000 pixels wide. 'Liquid' or 'Fluid' web-sites are a nightmare to code properly in CSS, and on ever increasing monitor size, look stretched and not good. If you make your web-site 900-1000 pixels wide then your pretty much covered. I haven't seen a computer with 800x600 resolution for years.
Resolution??? Don't worry about it, except as far as fonts appear. Not everyone leaves their browser window open full-screen. Plenty of of people have other stuff running at the same time and like to see it all on their screen. If your page is stuck at 1000px wide then the user doesn't have that ability to have a minimised browser window and all their other garbage open AND still view the web page fine. If your design looks sh*tty at really huge resolutions, then set a max-width. Not hard to do at all. Liquid widths aren't harder in CSS-- they're easier, because you can be pretty lazy, not having to set widths on your big boxes. I think it shows a little more care and is a tad more work to set a minumum width (so that the design doesn't completely break down into incomprehensibility at something lower than 760px wide) and a max width if necessary. This means, you really tested on mulitple resolutions and browser window sizes and, hopefully, different dpi's too. 600x800 is still out there, as well as 340x480 and some smaller ones, I dunno, I'm not hip enough to have crap like cell phones that interweb and PDA's/crackberries and iPhones and all that garbage. I'd rather they saw my sites without CSS anyway. Until I have one of these things, I'm not going to try to make a handheld css-- I'd be writing it blind.
I agree with you on that, with the exception of the phone thing (kinda). I am far too lazy to write a sparate stylesheet for handheld devices, especially when they vary so much, but I like to make sure my sites are at least usable in handheld devices, and somehow, I got this. I dunno how I got it, probably with Dreamweaver, Flash or Premiere but I make uus e of it, even though I am unsure how accurate Adobe is.
I am developing an allergy to Adobe and its products. I wouldn't use Flash at all except the bosses wanted it, plus I can then malke my files into .eps and .ai for the printers (keep waiting for printers to get with the whole svg thing).
Yeah I know the feeling, though if you have Flash, you probably have Device Central. Man I wish SVG was more widely available (though if IE died, it would be, does anyone know if SVG is in IE8?) I can't bring myself to use image maps, and the sexy vectors of SVG are so much better thn Flash (I think, haven't actually tested that much)
Erm, I've had some pretty damn hard layouts to do liquid, when the designer obviously has no sense of the who fluid design concept.
^ well, yeah, I said that rather loosely, didn't I? In general, I find the CSS for such sites as less code and whatnot, but yeah it strongly depends on the design. Forums for example just naturally work with total liquid... something with lots of boxes floating in the middle can look pretty bad on liquid. Whicever I use is pretty much set by the design. If it can totally take the 100% liquid thing I do it. But if it can't, then I start working with flex-width. With me, that's become my default, OR I've just redone a "page" on a guy's site where it seems to be a set width, but grows nicely with text enlarge-- creates a scrollbar if your screen is too small, but that's what you get if you need the font size to be 50px or whatever. I guess I'd call that another option to liquid-fixed-flex, huh? But it's fixed-width in flex-units: http://stommepoes.nl/Karelvanderaa/kscooterbereken2.html vs his actual site www.karelvanderaa.nl (do text-enlarge).