design for screensize or for content?

Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, www.somestuff.batcave.net , It
would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and forgotten.

As a run down the stats show:

800x600:.........5.64%
1024x768......51.04%
1152x864......13.06%
1280x1024....23.04%

So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old standards
or what?
The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the technology
and upgrade their browsers as needed.

BTW, comments on my site welcomed.
Before someone goes whining about the frames, I DO NOT USE FRAMES!
That was the one thing my gallery is all about.
Keeping the content all on one page.
The opening image will also change depending on what hour you visit.

Richard wrote:

> Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, www.somestuff.batcave.net ,
> It would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and
> forgotten.
>
> As a run down the stats show:
>
> 800x600:.........5.64%
> 1024x768......51.04%
> 1152x864......13.06%
> 1280x1024....23.04%

How many visitors do you get to your site though? That 1280x1024 figure
seems pretty high. If you visit the site yourself a lot and you use a
high res monitor could you be skewing the stats up?

> So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old
> standards or what?
> The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the
> technology and upgrade their browsers as needed.

That's certainly an interesting opinion. Remember that it takes more
than upgrading a web browser to change screen res.

> BTW, comments on my site welcomed.
> Before someone goes whining about the frames, I DO NOT USE FRAMES!
> That was the one thing my gallery is all about.
> Keeping the content all on one page.
> The opening image will also change depending on what hour you visit.

--
Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:30:33 -0600, Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:

> The opening image will also change depending on what hour you visit.

Implementing that was a waste of time. Since noone will come back to your pages,
noone will notice this anyway.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:57:46 +1300 Chris Hope wrote:

> Richard wrote:

>> Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, www.somestuff.batcave.net ,
>> It would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and
>> forgotten.

>> As a run down the stats show:

>> 800x600:.........5.64%
>> 1024x768......51.04%
>> 1152x864......13.06%
>> 1280x1024....23.04%

> How many visitors do you get to your site though? That 1280x1024 figure
> seems pretty high. If you visit the site yourself a lot and you use a
> high res monitor could you be skewing the stats up?

I have the stats set not to count my hits.
The majority of the visitors seem to favor XP so that may have something to
do with it too.
You can see the stats yourself if you'd like.


>> So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old
>> standards or what?
>> The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the
>> technology and upgrade their browsers as needed.

> That's certainly an interesting opinion. Remember that it takes more
> than upgrading a web browser to change screen res.

I realize that. Unless your roll your own stats, you're stuck with the
reports showing the screen resolution, not actual window size.
After all, how many thousand possible combinations are there in window size?
Screen res is a catch all thing.

>> BTW, comments on my site welcomed.
>> Before someone goes whining about the frames, I DO NOT USE FRAMES!
>> That was the one thing my gallery is all about.
>> Keeping the content all on one page.
>> The opening image will also change depending on what hour you visit.

> --
> Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/

Richard wrote :
> Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, somestuff batcave net , It
> would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and forgotten.

5% is certainly not a "dead and forgotten" figure.


> As a run down the stats show:
>
> 800x600:.........5.64%
> 1024x768......51.04%
> 1152x864......13.06%
> 1280x1024....23.04%
>
> So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old standards
> or what?
> The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the technology
> and upgrade their browsers as needed.

Right. but I have recently purchase a new PDA/Phone with a screen size
that is much smaller than 800x600. I would suggest that later
technology has nothing to do with size of your monitor. In fact, quite
contrary to what you are saying. You should now consider even smaller
"browsers" (as you refer to it (quite incorretly actually) ).

--
stretch after a workout

Richard wrote:
> Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, www.somestuff.batcave.net , It
> would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and forgotten.
>
> As a run down the stats show:
>
> 800x600:.........5.64%
> 1024x768......51.04%
> 1152x864......13.06%
> 1280x1024....23.04%
>
> So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old standards
> or what?
> The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the technology
> and upgrade their browsers as needed.

Question - why is it that if fluid design is the method to take, do
nearly ALL the major website (most popular) use fixed designs... ? BBC
for instance ... Yahoo etc.. - not Microsoft though !!!

Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>> Looking at my stats on my latest playtoy, www.somestuff.batcave.net ,
>> It would appear that the use of 800x600 is practically dead and
>> forgotten.
>>
>> As a run down the stats show:
>>
>> 800x600:.........5.64%
>> 1024x768......51.04%
>> 1152x864......13.06%
>> 1280x1024....23.04%
>>
>> So should the design of the modern webpage say goodbye to the old
>> standards or what?
>> The way I see it, modern day websurfers should keep up with the
>> technology and upgrade their browsers as needed.
>
> Question - why is it that if fluid design is the method to take, do
> nearly ALL the major website (most popular) use fixed designs... ? BBC
> for instance ... Yahoo etc.. - not Microsoft though !!!

I've often wondered this myself. The main daily newspaper in my country
redeveloped their site recently and it's a fixed width to fit on an 800
wide screen. I find it really frustrating reading articles on their
site because once you have the left navigation and right advertising
space there ain't much room for the article in the central column. I
wish they would leave it up to me to decide how wide that column should
be.

--
Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/