what resolution site should be optimised ?

The only problem that there is with %s is if you have set size objects eg images. It does not work totally and how you want in all resolutions. That is why the big sites do max 730px approx on the pages where there are pics and ..... whatever on the search pages etc where there is text only.

 

That also applies to logos and banners, Foxy.

Note that if you do use % on a banner or wide logo and the page looks good at 800 x 600, it is going to look like crap when it stretches to larger resolutions.

 

I never said that people should use percentages for images - that's naturally a silly idea

If you really do need to use percentages for images to make the site look sensible in other resolutions, you could use:

min-width: whatever;
max-width: whatever;

Code (markup):

Normally you can just keep images at a static size, give their parent element a background-color the same as the image's and use percentages for the size of the parent element only.

Or if it really is a problem, then yes just build everything statically. That doesn't change the fact that it's better to make the site fluid if possible

 

Actually when come to think of it why would you put so much effort for that 2 inch side scrolling by visitors that are on 800x600...there used to scrolling anyways

 

Not true. If I hit a site that tries to make me sidescroll, I'm outa there fast in 99.9% of cases - there are lots of other sites that show visitors more courtesy - why would I waste my time on one that doesn't?

 

I i hit a site and the whole thing fills up my 1280x1020 monitor then I am usually out of there. Expanding columns are all well and good. But it's much easier to read narrow columns of text, which is why I go for fixed width.

A real world example would be tabloid newspapers and broadsheet newspapers. The paper that they are printed on are different sizes, but the columns are usually close to the same width

 

This forum does that...

There's no reason why you can't have fixed-width columns within a variable-width container. That way the size of the browser window determines how your columns are laid-out, but the columns themselves stay fixed-width.

 

Back when I had a smaller monitor, I really hated sites that dismissed me completely by designing their sites for bigger res. So I never went back. In fact, as soon as the whole site loaded, and I saw that they didn't want my business, I left to find someone else.

Keep in mind that a healthy population still has only 800x600 res.

 

I would argue that increasingly the 800X600 crowd are already used to horizontal scrolling anyhow. I do make most of my small business sites either liquid to fit down under 700px wide or fixed at around 760px.

Boomers are actually buying computers and you are not going to find too many computers shipping with a 15" monitor these days. Most 17" monitors are set to 1024X768.

With the cost of LCD's dropping in the 17 and 19" ranges with native resolutions you are going to see alot more 1200X900 or 1280X960 or in my case with a WXGA 1280X800 and a XGA of 1600X1200.

I feel it is the designer's responsibility to know who the majority audience is.

One factor in width of the page (despite what Jakob Nielsen has to say on the matter) is readability. I prefer to be reading on a more paper like orientation. I like to have main content no wider than about 500px on a screen. I hate looking from left to right on the page too much and it decreases readability.

All the best,

Jay

 

I can tell you that I'm not - I just don't do it. As I said, there's always a copmpetitor with a site where it isn't required.

It isn't a matter of monitor size alone. Many baby boomers are now at that annoying age where you need correction for both near and far and monitors are often right in that gray zone between the two corrections.

 

That is why I advocate using larger fonts. Approximately 14-15px on Windows machines. I don't see why anyone should be straining to read.

All the best,

Jay

 

I use my 1024x768 monitor for web browsing. I just dragged my browser to the 1280x1024 screen and maximised the window. Ow. I can't put up with that

 

Much of this debate will be moot when MS implements the max-width, min-width property of CSS in IE7. Then we can have liquid layouts that will look good at 800 px wide and expand up to an allowable maximum or the browser window width if we want.

Great thread. Good to discuss.

All the best,

Jay

 

this is the catch. no one likes to scroll and in mots cases part of web site in scrolling is hardly get attention.
i totally agree with minstrel

this why people are spending money, time and energy to respect visitor. visitor is "EveryThing" for a site.