Browsing question...

How do you feel about the move by major websites to a wider screen resolution?

Here's an example of a conventional 800 x 600 designed site...SI.com.

And here's an example of a 1024 x 800 designed site...CNN.com.

The reason I'm asking is that I have the opportunity to add some more features to my frontpage (like up-to-date stock quotes for selected companies) but will need to widen the page to make it work. I know from my server logs that less than 10% of my site's viewers use a 800 x 600 resolution. But...I also know that some folks surf without their browser maximized, so the log numbers don't really tell me too much.

So do you love the move to a wider format? Hate it? Couldn't care less?

And if you dislike it, do you entirely avoid sites that require horizontal scrolling? Or is the change tolerable?

I like 1024x800 better.

greenLED said:

I like 1024x800 better.

Click to expand...

Ditto. I'd use a larger resolution if my screen was bigger (17").

I also find horizontal scrolling to read text intolerable. Having to scroll over and then scroll back with each line nearly always causes me to just leave the site or just skip that thread.


:buddies:

Horizontal scrolling is, indeed, intolerable.

I may be an anachronism. I actually prefer surfing with a 12" iBook rather than the 17" laptop that's sitting a couple of feet away. I know that over half of computer sales these days are laptops, but haven't seen any data on screen size. For us with smaller screens, the larger format sites are a bit of a pain.

Diesel_Bomber said:

Ditto. I'd use a larger resolution if my screen was bigger (17").

I also find horizontal scrolling to read text intolerable. Having to scroll over and then scroll back with each line nearly always causes me to just leave the site or just skip that thread.


:buddies:

Click to expand...

I hate scrolling horizontally also, that's why I'm concerned about the guy stuck with an older monitor...I don't want to make the site hard to use, for anybody.

If I do this it will be as an added column to the far right of the existing page, so that none of the main content goes across the full screen. On a smaller monitor you might have to scroll to see the added column, but you could also ignore the content there if you so choose...without screwing up viewing of the rest of the page.

It's a matter of being realistic rather than being afflicted with tunnel vision.
I'd think the overwhelming majority of computer users still have 4:3 format screens. Those who are using 16:9 format layouts are either misled by their own web designers or think they're being "technologically advanced". Consider your audience, the audience that you want to reach, and work from there, not by what might seem fashionable.

For what it's worth, I think you've taken the right step in reaching out to an audience for feedback rather than just forging ahead and doing it.

As late as the late 1990s and early this decade, there were still high tech companies that had their web sites in either a 640 width or a dynamic width site to accommodate as many potential customers as they could.

metalhed said:

I hate scrolling horizontally also, that's why I'm concerned about the guy stuck with an older monitor...I don't want to make the site hard to use, for anybody.

If I do this it will be as an added column to the far right of the existing page, so that none of the main content goes across the full screen. On a smaller monitor you might have to scroll to see the added column, but you could also ignore the content there if you so choose...without screwing up viewing of the rest of the page.

Click to expand...

The higher the resolution, the better.

Don't got for higher res = better, necessarily. That is, somewhere around 80 characters per line is ideal for reading. Greater desnity leads to slower reading. You can't get that perfectly, but just somewhere close. If you're OK tinkering with stylesheets, measure things out in EM or EX to match the size for 800 and 1024 with IE and FF's default font sizes, so that a change in DPI or font size will autmagically scale text larger (this is especially great for laptops, where you've often got high DPI, and have to deal with itty bitty text on most websites). Currently using a larger font size makes the text bigger, but cramps it into absolutely sized table elements.

Adamantly opposed to it.

When I write a program I write it for the weakest workstation in the house, the slowest processor and the smallest monitor. This can be irritating to a requestor sporting dual 21" LCD monitors. I've had to explain that Wilhelmina Workaholic is using an old CRT and since she's the one doing the work and the requestor is just looking at the work; the PGM will be designed to be most usable for the default/crappy work station. Period.

When Jasper and Beatrice Win98 go to a government site to renew their car tags or get help with taxes the site should be easy for this couple of tax paying citizens to navigate. When Jasper and Beatrice FlashlightBuyer go online to purchase something, the retailers should want them to be able to navigate their sites with ease and not have to horizontal scroll while reading each line of the product description.

Three years from now maybe the specifics won't be true but the concept of writing PGMs and web sites for users and audiences that are limited by their ownership of the weakest equipment will still be valid.

Icebreak and Brighteyez -- I too am very concerned about accessibility when it comes to my site. Up until this project, I've never worked professionally in web-design, so I sometimes struggle with this area. I've tried to limit JavaScript to non-essential areas of the site---I won't use flash animation because of accessibility issues. Same with image-maps and the like...if a text-based browser can't see it, then I'm excluding some folks with disabilities or with primitive/older browsers.

The problem I have, as a commercial site, is where do I draw the line?

Do I style the site for the 320 x 240 handheld that sits on my desk? As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to ever access the site with such a resolution...do I write for that size display anyway? Obviously, the answer is no. (I am working towards a stylesheet for mobile viewing...but it's kinda far down on my 'to do' list.) It would appear, from my server logs, that 800 x 600 is a dying animal...I now have higher traffic than the first of the year, and yet that resolution's audience is shrinking fast. And the fact is, there is never enough real estate on the screen for everything I would like to see there, so the notion of extra territory is very appealing.

Unfortunately, this may be moot anyway, as I've learned that the tool I was going to add may conflict with my Google Sitesearch agreement, which is exclusive of other search engines.

And Google says 'Do no evil.' Yeah, right.

I honestly didn't realize that anybody still uses 600x800 these days. That's a throwback to the days of 13" or 14" monitors. 1024x768 is fine even on a 15" CRT (I used that resolution for years before I purchased a 19" LCD last month). Probably 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are the resolutions used by the majority of viewers these days. I personally wish LCD makers would go with higher DPI on their displays. My 19" would be just about perfect at 2048x1536 or better. You need 150 dpi or better combined with antialising to get onscreen text to approach the clarity of printed material. Cleartype is a step in the right direction, but I would really like to see higher dpi/higher resolution displays.

Dynamic resolution is best but if you're stuck with picking a fixed resolution then I would design for 1024x768 now. 1280x1024 will probably be the defacto standard within a year or two since the price of LCD monitors is dropping fast, and that is the resolution of lower-priced 17" and 19" panels. As for widescreen, maybe it's just me, but for PC use it just feels wrong. The impetus behind the push for 16:9 has to do with getting more useable panels, thus reducing display costs, rather than with any inherent superiority of the 16:9 format (at least for PC work). Sadly, it seems that 4:3 LCD displays larger than 21" just aren't going to be made.

As an aside, I don't get why anyone in a business environment especially should be using such a small screen that they're forced to use 800x600. A low-end 15" LCD panel with 1024x768 resolution can be had for not much over $100. The extra productivity and reduced eyestrain for the employee over an old flickering 13" or 14" CRT easily justify the investment. Heck, it isn't terribly expensive to go with a larger 17" or 19" panel these days. I'm usually tighter than a crab's rearend with money, yet I invested $225 (after rebates) in my new display since I was sick and tired of eyestrain, poor colors, and headaches from my outdated 15" CRT. Besides that, it was near the end of its life anyhow, as are just about any CRTs smaller than 17" these days. The new display was worth every penny and then some.