Comments on: How Big Is Too Big? http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/ thoughts on | comments about | examples of } web design trends. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:02:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Andrew Faulkner http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-913 Andrew Faulkner Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:34:18 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-913 I try to encorporate what I assume are the maximum and minimum screen sizes in my designs. Most of the time this means using a 'liquid layout. I do tend to 'stop' a design at large widths as readability becomes an issue. One point to take on board is that browser stats give the wrong impression. Seeing that 75% of fadtastic users have a resolution of 1280 x 1024 may not mean that 75% are using their browser in full-screen mode. They may also have sidebars open making the viewport smaller. I try to encorporate what I assume are the maximum and minimum screen sizes in my designs. Most of the time this means using a ‘liquid layout. I do tend to ’stop’ a design at large widths as readability becomes an issue.

One point to take on board is that browser stats give the wrong impression. Seeing that 75% of fadtastic users have a resolution of 1280 x 1024 may not mean that 75% are using their browser in full-screen mode. They may also have sidebars open making the viewport smaller.

]]> By: Yas http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-918 Yas Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:06:07 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-918 I try to follow the 12" Powerbook rule. If it doesn't look good on that screen, it's probably not the best design. Not that our current design passes with flying colors, but I always try to keep our small-screened readers in mind. I try to follow the 12″ Powerbook rule. If it doesn’t look good on that screen, it’s probably not the best design.

Not that our current design passes with flying colors, but I always try to keep our small-screened readers in mind.

]]> By: Andrew W http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-919 Andrew W Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:26:00 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-919 The 12" Powerbook rule is a good idea. Even if you're a designer with a huge screen at home, you may also have a laptop and almost certainly have a smallish monitor at work. That's how it is for me at least. The 12″ Powerbook rule is a good idea. Even if you’re a designer with a huge screen at home, you may also have a laptop and almost certainly have a smallish monitor at work. That’s how it is for me at least.

]]> By: Darren Hoyt http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-924 Darren Hoyt Sat, 22 Apr 2006 02:43:10 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-924 Take it for what it's worth, but this year I began designing for a width of about 820px, usually centered. It leaves the 800x600 standard behind (most new machines are shipping with 1024 resolution these days anyway), but does not get so close to 1024 that folks with laptops must scroll horizontally. Liquid layout for me is just too big a risk as I see monitors getting larger -- reading text more than about 8" across is too difficult for the eye to follow line to line. The average paperback book is maybe 6" wide and for good reason. Take it for what it’s worth, but this year I began designing for a width of about 820px, usually centered. It leaves the 800×600 standard behind (most new machines are shipping with 1024 resolution these days anyway), but does not get so close to 1024 that folks with laptops must scroll horizontally. Liquid layout for me is just too big a risk as I see monitors getting larger — reading text more than about 8″ across is too difficult for the eye to follow line to line. The average paperback book is maybe 6″ wide and for good reason.

]]> By: Gomi http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-930 Gomi Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:32:46 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-930 About 20% of the visitors on my more popular sites use a screen resolution of 800x600px or lower so I still use 800x600 as the base resolution for most of my designs. Liquid layout is good for crossing the resolution divide but I personally feel a fixed width site provides more control and compatibility with that dinosaur, ie, plus I have yet to see a liquid layout site that looks good and still be very usable on huge monitors (20"+). Using background image 'trickery' is one of the techniques that can be employed effectively for users with bigger displays on a 'small width' site. About 20% of the visitors on my more popular sites use a screen resolution of 800×600px or lower so I still use 800×600 as the base resolution for most of my designs. Liquid layout is good for crossing the resolution divide but I personally feel a fixed width site provides more control and compatibility with that dinosaur, ie, plus I have yet to see a liquid layout site that looks good and still be very usable on huge monitors (20″+). Using background image ‘trickery’ is one of the techniques that can be employed effectively for users with bigger displays on a ’small width’ site.

]]> By: Johan Van Den Rym http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-942 Johan Van Den Rym Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:06:52 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-942 you can serve a different stylesheet to users using eg 800 *600 design, wih Javascript you can add a listener which detects browser dimension and load the stylesheet accordingly. you can serve a different stylesheet to users using eg 800 *600 design, wih Javascript you can add a listener which detects browser dimension and load the stylesheet accordingly.

]]> By: Kevin Cannon http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-952 Kevin Cannon Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:47:20 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-952 Wait a second. You do your code first? That seems kind of backward to me, perhaps you could explain your process. Wait a second. You do your code first? That seems kind of backward to me, perhaps you could explain your process.

]]> By: Andrew Faulkner http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-953 Andrew Faulkner Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:46:36 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-953 I'd also be interested to hear how/why you code first. Please tell us how you do you websites. Just curious. I’d also be interested to hear how/why you code first. Please tell us how you do you websites. Just curious.

]]> By: Steve C. http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-956 Steve C. Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:27:25 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-956 (off topic...) "Liquid layout for me is just too big a risk as I see monitors getting larger — reading text more than about 8″ across is too difficult for the eye to follow line to line." Yep. For this reason I would recommend you use a max-width. This way you can cap the width to keep it from getting too out of hand. There are even ways of getting max-width to work reliably in IE (gasp!) http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/000892.html (off topic…)

“Liquid layout for me is just too big a risk as I see monitors getting larger — reading text more than about 8″ across is too difficult for the eye to follow line to line.”

Yep. For this reason I would recommend you use a max-width. This way you can cap the width to keep it from getting too out of hand. There are even ways of getting max-width to work reliably in IE (gasp!)

http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/000892.html

]]> By: Steven Teskey http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-957 Steven Teskey Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:12:20 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-957 I (as of recently) believe that most of the beauty in a webpage is in how the information is arranged. The best sites are harmonies of graphical and informational representation. It's easy to forget that the infromation must be the focus of the website when heavy graphics are used. Hopefully that may justify my methods. I've been asked to explain my methods of design, so I shall endulge (even though I don't quite think that the comments section is the place for this. I have a habit of being somewhat sporadic, and as I really only design unformally (for myself, or for no money), I tend to change things up a lot. When I say "a lot" I mean entire layouts on a whim. To combat this I tend to start off by determining what type of information I'll be displaying, how much information, and the best methods of displaying such information. From there I create a layout, sounds strange I know, but with an imagination like mine it's just easier to get what I originally wanted without straying. After the layout is complete, as in all information has been displayed in a manner that's best suited to it, I then add the graphical touches. I do minor changes afterwards, so that there isn't any heavily conflicting design work. I (as of recently) believe that most of the beauty in a webpage is in how the information is arranged. The best sites are harmonies of graphical and informational representation. It’s easy to forget that the infromation must be the focus of the website when heavy graphics are used. Hopefully that may justify my methods. I’ve been asked to explain my methods of design, so I shall endulge (even though I don’t quite think that the comments section is the place for this.

I have a habit of being somewhat sporadic, and as I really only design unformally (for myself, or for no money), I tend to change things up a lot. When I say “a lot” I mean entire layouts on a whim. To combat this I tend to start off by determining what type of information I’ll be displaying, how much information, and the best methods of displaying such information. From there I create a layout, sounds strange I know, but with an imagination like mine it’s just easier to get what I originally wanted without straying. After the layout is complete, as in all information has been displayed in a manner that’s best suited to it, I then add the graphical touches. I do minor changes afterwards, so that there isn’t any heavily conflicting design work.

]]> By: Chris Williams http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-987 Chris Williams Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:35:11 +0000 http://fadtastic.net/2006/04/21/how-big-is-too-big/#comment-987 [quote]With lots of users adopting a larger screen area I find it easy to believe that no one uses anything smaller than 1024×768[/quote] I find this statement quite shocking honestly. Yes quite a few websites seem to be embracing the 1024 resolution as a minimum width lately - but this is usually from sites in the web design community where their audience is very computer-savvy (this very website for example). When moving away from this kind of audience, I think the number of users still using 800x600 is quite high. One set of website stats I have access to for instance (which is from a global website, with a very wide and varied audience) can see 800x600 at something like 20%. If that website is receiving 10,000 visitors a day, should we then make 2000 of those scroll horizontally?! Again this all comes down to "horses for courses" - where a higher screen res may be acceptable for one website but not another. Personally, unless the website has a very computer focused audience I still think it is too soon to be disregarding the 800x600 users.

With lots of users adopting a larger screen area I find it easy to believe that no one uses anything smaller than 1024×768

I find this statement quite shocking honestly.

Yes quite a few websites seem to be embracing the 1024 resolution as a minimum width lately - but this is usually from sites in the web design community where their audience is very computer-savvy (this very website for example).

When moving away from this kind of audience, I think the number of users still using 800×600 is quite high. One set of website stats I have access to for instance (which is from a global website, with a very wide and varied audience) can see 800×600 at something like 20%. If that website is receiving 10,000 visitors a day, should we then make 2000 of those scroll horizontally?!

Again this all comes down to “horses for courses” - where a higher screen res may be acceptable for one website but not another.

Personally, unless the website has a very computer focused audience I still think it is too soon to be disregarding the 800×600 users.

]]>