Page Width - Backwards Compatibility

[livingloans]

Hi,

I am led to believe that approx 50% of the world's population operate at a
screen resolution of <= 800 X 600 DPI .

What is the best page / table size to fit onto a 600 X 800 screen?

I have heard 745 is the magic figure but I have seen sites set betwee, 718 &
780.

I assume that 20 dpi is a good figure to allow for a vertical scrollbar should
it occur?

Couls someone please advise: I thought 750 - 760 would cover basically every
realistic scenario, but I will bow to greaer knowledge,

Regards,

Peter

[Brandon Taylor]

I've found that 760 x 420 fits nicely on an 800 x 600 monitor, with the
browser window maximized.

You're not going to be able to please everyone, and I'm sorry, but 800 x 600
is so 1996. I usually design for 1024 x 768, and sometimes higher, depending
on the scenario.

My 2 cents,
Brandon

"livingloans" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:d6v7p4$hfv$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Hi,
>
> I am led to believe that approx 50% of the world's population operate at a
> screen resolution of <= 800 X 600 DPI .
>
> What is the best page / table size to fit onto a 600 X 800 screen?
>
> I have heard 745 is the magic figure but I have seen sites set betwee, 718
> &
> 780.
>
> I assume that 20 dpi is a good figure to allow for a vertical scrollbar
> should
> it occur?
>
> Couls someone please advise: I thought 750 - 760 would cover basically
> every
> realistic scenario, but I will bow to greaer knowledge,
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>

[darrel]

> You're not going to be able to please everyone, and I'm sorry, but 800 x
600

> is so 1996. I usually design for 1024 x 768, and sometimes higher,

depending

> on the scenario.

That is ridiculous.

A few things to note:

Monitor resolution, for the most part, doesn't have any correlation to the
size of the browser viewport.

The more resolution the end-user has to work with, the more likely that
a) they have one, LARGER browser window open or
b) they have multiple, but SMALLER browser windows open
(ie, it can go either way)

While we're making larger and larger screens, we're also making smaller and
smaller screens (compact laptops, PDAs, etc.)

Browsers are adding a lot more chrome...IM windows, bookmark panes, history
panes, etc, etc.

And finally, the simple fact that not everyone browses the web with only one
single, fully maximized window. While it's nice to think one's own site is
so important that people will hide everything else they are doing on their
comnputer just to gaze at your site, that's not necessarily the norm.

So, anyways, to answer the OP's question, assume that there is no specific
size. Because there isn't. There is *no* 'magic number'. Either pick a size
and assume a chunk of your audience will have a smaller viewport and a chunk
will have a larger one, or consider using a fluid layout...setting your
widths as percentages rather than fixed-widths.

-Darrel

[Brandon Taylor]

I agree about percentages versus fixed width layouts, but it's not
*ridiculous* to design a site/app around a specific project's parameters. I
just finished an app where all users were running a minimum of 1152 x 870,
so I had more space to work with. In turn, I structured my app a little
differently to accomodate more menus/functions.

To each his own.

"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6vdoq$qog$1@forums.macromedia.com...

>> You're not going to be able to please everyone, and I'm sorry, but 800 x

> 600

>> is so 1996. I usually design for 1024 x 768, and sometimes higher,

> depending

>> on the scenario.

>
> That is ridiculous.
>
> A few things to note:
>
> Monitor resolution, for the most part, doesn't have any correlation to the
> size of the browser viewport.
>
> The more resolution the end-user has to work with, the more likely that
> a) they have one, LARGER browser window open or
> b) they have multiple, but SMALLER browser windows open
> (ie, it can go either way)
>
> While we're making larger and larger screens, we're also making smaller
> and
> smaller screens (compact laptops, PDAs, etc.)
>
> Browsers are adding a lot more chrome...IM windows, bookmark panes,
> history
> panes, etc, etc.
>
> And finally, the simple fact that not everyone browses the web with only
> one
> single, fully maximized window. While it's nice to think one's own site is
> so important that people will hide everything else they are doing on their
> comnputer just to gaze at your site, that's not necessarily the norm.
>
> So, anyways, to answer the OP's question, assume that there is no specific
> size. Because there isn't. There is *no* 'magic number'. Either pick a
> size
> and assume a chunk of your audience will have a smaller viewport and a
> chunk
> will have a larger one, or consider using a fluid layout...setting your
> widths as percentages rather than fixed-widths.
>
> -Darrel
>
>

[darrel]

> I agree about percentages versus fixed width layouts, but it's not

> *ridiculous* to design a site/app around a specific project's parameters.

Well, if the paramaters are ridiculous... ;o)

> I
> just finished an app where all users were running a minimum of 1152 x 870,
> so I had more space to work with.

Well, this is an app, and web apps are given a bit more leeway in this
deabte, but, still, you made an assumption that the resolution had something
to do with the preferred size of the end-user's browser's viewport. There
really isn't a strong connection there. Yes, you could just force everyone
to maximize their browser...

-Darrel

[Brandon Taylor]

We'll probably never get a standard size for the end-user's browser's
viewport, and it's not going to be possible to please everyone, no matter
what resolution their monitor is set to, or what size their browser window
is. Sometimes it's just not possible to flow content and not make the user
scroll at least vertically. If they resize their browser to the size of a
postage stamp, scrolling is their problem in my opinion!

We're the developers, let's bend them to our will >:-)

"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6vgkh$1q7$1@forums.macromedia.com...

>> I agree about percentages versus fixed width layouts, but it's not
>> *ridiculous* to design a site/app around a specific project's parameters.

>
> Well, if the paramaters are ridiculous... ;o)
>

>> I
>> just finished an app where all users were running a minimum of 1152 x
>> 870,
>> so I had more space to work with.

>
> Well, this is an app, and web apps are given a bit more leeway in this
> deabte, but, still, you made an assumption that the resolution had
> something
> to do with the preferred size of the end-user's browser's viewport. There
> really isn't a strong connection there. Yes, you could just force everyone
> to maximize their browser...
>
> -Darrel
>
>

[darrel]

> We'll probably never get a standard size for the end-user's browser's

> viewport, and it's not going to be possible to please everyone, no matter
> what resolution their monitor is set to, or what size their browser window
> is.

Right. Though, to the best we can, we should accomodate as many people, even
if that isn't exactly 'pleasing' them.

> Sometimes it's just not possible to flow content and not make the user
> scroll at least vertically. If they resize their browser to the size of a
> postage stamp, scrolling is their problem in my opinion!

That's an OK POV in many cases...especially with web-apps.

That said, I think anything wider than 800 is a bit extreme...even for web
apps. But that, of course, IMHO. ;o)

> We're the developers, let's bend them to our will >:-)

Well, that's one approach, I suppose... ;o)

-Darrel

[livingloans]

Hi Brandon,

thank you for answering the actual Q - i.e. what size - 760 X 480 on an 800 X
600 monitor.

I fully understand all the other arguments, including Darrel's. I am looking
more at the technologically limited rather than multiple windows but that is
still an important consideration, though it is harder to analyse people's
habits with precision.

However, I am looking at the real world here, which is "is", rather than
"ought": If I am a tyre manufacturer, I may rightly think that for all good,
technical and verifiable reasons that everyone should be running 17 - 18"wheels
as a minimum. However, if 50% of the marketplace for whatever reason run 14 -
15" than I have to make a choice about either maintaining my principles risking
losing market share by driving them to a less philosophically pure competitor,
or accommodating them until such time as they change. I may in fact be right,
but if I can't drive the marketplace they will vote for mycompetitor with
their wallet.

In the same way, I think everyone "ought" to have at least a 1024 X 768
monitor, and / or "ought " to give my wonderful and deserving site their total
and undivided attention. The fact "is" that they often don't care about
technology and even less about me. Because capturing a market, either for
information or a product, means more to me than being technically correct, I am
willing to lose the techno / moral argument if I can win in the market place.

Therefore, I will make my widths somewhere between 720 - 760 because that
covers a lot of preferences or obsolescence, except for the 640 X 480 brigade.

Make my heights 480? I don't want them to have to scroll sideways but if they
have to scroll 5 screens deep that is their prob! After all, I have to maintain
some standards! :-)

Re % vs fixed width, I agree in principle, but in practice it seems that it
can cause probs. I thought the best solution was to nest a fixed width table in
a % width table?

And BTW, I assume 20 pixels is a safe max for scrollbar width?

Regards,

Peter

[Lionstone]

20px is a reasonable default for a scrollbar width, but that's not
completely predictable, either. :)
FWIW, my Win XP scrollbars are 16px wide with everything in its default
setting.

"livingloans" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:d6vn71$bgu$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Hi Brandon,
>
> thank you for answering the actual Q - i.e. what size - 760 X 480 on an
> 800 X
> 600 monitor.
>
> I fully understand all the other arguments, including Darrel's. I am
> looking
> more at the technologically limited rather than multiple windows but that
> is
> still an important consideration, though it is harder to analyse people's
> habits with precision.
>
> However, I am looking at the real world here, which is "is", rather than
> "ought": If I am a tyre manufacturer, I may rightly think that for all
> good,
> technical and verifiable reasons that everyone should be running 17 -
> 18"wheels
> as a minimum. However, if 50% of the marketplace for whatever reason run
> 14 -
> 15" than I have to make a choice about either maintaining my principles
> risking
> losing market share by driving them to a less philosophically pure
> competitor,
> or accommodating them until such time as they change. I may in fact be
> right,
> but if I can't drive the marketplace they will vote for mycompetitor with
> their wallet.
>
> In the same way, I think everyone "ought" to have at least a 1024 X 768
> monitor, and / or "ought " to give my wonderful and deserving site their
> total
> and undivided attention. The fact "is" that they often don't care about
> technology and even less about me. Because capturing a market, either for
> information or a product, means more to me than being technically correct,
> I am
> willing to lose the techno / moral argument if I can win in the market
> place.
>
> Therefore, I will make my widths somewhere between 720 - 760 because that
> covers a lot of preferences or obsolescence, except for the 640 X 480
> brigade.
>
> Make my heights 480? I don't want them to have to scroll sideways but if
> they
> have to scroll 5 screens deep that is their prob! After all, I have to
> maintain
> some standards! :-)
>
> Re % vs fixed width, I agree in principle, but in practice it seems that
> it
> can cause probs. I thought the best solution was to nest a fixed width
> table in
> a % width table?
>
> And BTW, I assume 20 pixels is a safe max for scrollbar width?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>

[Brandon Taylor]

I don't know of a way to control the width of a scrollbar, but you can use
CSS to do an Win-IE only modification of the colors.


"livingloans" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:d6vn71$bgu$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Hi Brandon,
>
> thank you for answering the actual Q - i.e. what size - 760 X 480 on an
> 800 X
> 600 monitor.
>
> I fully understand all the other arguments, including Darrel's. I am
> looking
> more at the technologically limited rather than multiple windows but that
> is
> still an important consideration, though it is harder to analyse people's
> habits with precision.
>
> However, I am looking at the real world here, which is "is", rather than
> "ought": If I am a tyre manufacturer, I may rightly think that for all
> good,
> technical and verifiable reasons that everyone should be running 17 -
> 18"wheels
> as a minimum. However, if 50% of the marketplace for whatever reason run
> 14 -
> 15" than I have to make a choice about either maintaining my principles
> risking
> losing market share by driving them to a less philosophically pure
> competitor,
> or accommodating them until such time as they change. I may in fact be
> right,
> but if I can't drive the marketplace they will vote for mycompetitor with
> their wallet.
>
> In the same way, I think everyone "ought" to have at least a 1024 X 768
> monitor, and / or "ought " to give my wonderful and deserving site their
> total
> and undivided attention. The fact "is" that they often don't care about
> technology and even less about me. Because capturing a market, either for
> information or a product, means more to me than being technically correct,
> I am
> willing to lose the techno / moral argument if I can win in the market
> place.
>
> Therefore, I will make my widths somewhere between 720 - 760 because that
> covers a lot of preferences or obsolescence, except for the 640 X 480
> brigade.
>
> Make my heights 480? I don't want them to have to scroll sideways but if
> they
> have to scroll 5 screens deep that is their prob! After all, I have to
> maintain
> some standards! :-)
>
> Re % vs fixed width, I agree in principle, but in practice it seems that
> it
> can cause probs. I thought the best solution was to nest a fixed width
> table in
> a % width table?
>
> And BTW, I assume 20 pixels is a safe max for scrollbar width?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>

[darrel]

> I fully understand all the other arguments, including Darrel's. I am
looking

> more at the technologically limited rather than multiple windows but that

is

> still an important consideration, though it is harder to analyse people's
> habits with precision.

Right. That's a key point when dealing with the web.

> In the same way, I think everyone "ought" to have at least a 1024 X 768
> monitor, and / or "ought " to give my wonderful and deserving site their

total

> and undivided attention. The fact "is" that they often don't care about
> technology and even less about me. Because capturing a market, either for
> information or a product, means more to me than being technically correct,

I am

> willing to lose the techno / moral argument if I can win in the market

place.

Almost right. Except that you can be both technically correct and capture a
market. Usability/accessibility are primary ways to make your customers
happy.

> Therefore, I will make my widths somewhere between 720 - 760 because that
> covers a lot of preferences or obsolescence, except for the 640 X 480

brigade.

Well, except for anyone that doesn't browser with a maxmized browser. So
just don't assume you're only not accomodating those with small monitors.

That said, 720 is a nice middle-ground. It's a valid option.

> Make my heights 480? I don't want them to have to scroll sideways but if

they

> have to scroll 5 screens deep that is their prob! After all, I have to

maintain

> some standards! :-)

Well, same issue. A web page really doesn't have a height. People *are* used
to scrolling vertically. If you have something really important but it's
nested 5 screens down, then perhaps it'd make more sense to make that a
separate page, or rewrite your copy.

Traditionally, the 'portal' pages into your site should be shallow...key
links at the top. But as you drill down into more specific topic areas,
people will be more willing to scroll in exchange for more information.

> Re % vs fixed width, I agree in principle, but in practice it seems that

it

> can cause probs.

Well, both can cause problems. ;o)

> I thought the best solution was to nest a fixed width table in
> a % width table?

There is no 'best' solution, but what you are hinting at is a flexible width
page with a maximum-width set, so as to not let line lengths get too out of
hand. Normally, you'd just use min-width and max-width CSS, but IE, as
usual, ignores that, so you need to resort to methods such as the nested
table option.

-Darrel