Re: FW: Resolution

>>It's just as rude to  limit folks with high quality systems to low-res
graphics as it is to ignore people with low-end systems.  

is it?  Thats rather silly to say,. people with lo-res when trying to
view a "well designed" web page with high-res graphics don't get
anything but a blurry mess.  But in the exact opposite scenario, when
someone with high-res tries to view a "well designed" site with low
res, at least they can still see the page how it was meant to look. 
People with high-res don't get a cookie for keeping up with
technology, they just get to see it a lil more clearly  =).




---"Stephen K. Fisk" <skfisk(at)iserv.net> wrote:
>
> I don't see that frames add all that much value to a site.  In most
cases
> you can do just as good a job with a nonframe version.  There are a
few
> isolated cases where frames really do bring an advantage, but at the
price
> of limiting access to those with frames capability.
> 
> On the other hand there are times when designing for the lowest
possible
> denominator really does limit the quality and value of what can been
viewed.
> It's just as rude to  limit folks with high quality systems to low-res
> graphics as it is to ignore people with low-end systems.  Either
approach
> imposes limitations that need not exist if a designer is willing to
produce
> multiple-res sites, with the choice left to the viewer.  The low-res
site
> can still be the entry level standard, but the commercial artist who
wants
> people to really see the quality of their work can also be assured
of a
> place.  If you limit them to 640 x 480 your are tying both hands
behind
> their backs.  I have seen sites that state up front they are best
viewed at
> higher resolution but some suggest that is rude.  On the other hand
will
> anyone buy their art/products if all people can see is a crude
rendition of
> reality?  It could be a real turn-off in some cases.  I vote for
realistic
> options that have been developed with an eye to meeting the needs of
the
> target audience.  It may not be easy to accomplish, but it is entirely
> within the capability of present technology.  I have yet to see a
multi-res
> site (and no, I have not looked at them all - grin).
> 
> skf
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org]
On
> Behalf Of rbrooks
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 1:28 PM
> To: Jake Moore; hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: Resolution
> 
> As far as the option goes I wouldn't be too keen on the idea not
> because they might not know what resolution is, but because thats just
> another thing you are making them think about.  I wouldn't ever
> consider using frames, not even if I had an option available for a
> "frames/no frames" version... why make the people that do not like
> them have to change something just cause thats how you want to do it -
> cause you don't make pages for yourself (cept home pages)you make it
> for them.. the ones who visit it.  Now to put this letter back on
> topic - same the same goes for resolution.  Why make them think about
> what resolution they want, when you can just do it simply in the first
> place?  If you want your company to stand out, then fix the little
> things that buzz in the back of their head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---Jake Moore <moore(at)rebeltrail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have seen this issue come up many times in this group and I've
> remained
> > silent, but I think I should finally voice my opinion.
> >
> > I have been designing web pages for years now and I usually follow
one
> > simple rule: "always design to the lowest common denominator". I do
> not give
> > the average user a lot of credit when it comes to computing
> expertise - I
> > would bet most average net users would have no idea what
> "resolution" is -
> > so why confuse them with a welcoming web page that says "please
> choose your
> > computer's screen resolution". I tried that once and got hordes of
> e-mail
> > asking me what the user's screen resolution is - like I said - I
> don't give
> > the average user a lot of credit.
> >
> > Designing to a 640 x 480 resolution is a pain, I agree, but us web
> designers
> > are plagued with incompatibilities in the system, be it browser
type,
> > browser version, operating system, etc. The challenge is how to get
> around
> > these issues no matter what type of user visits the web site. It's a
> tough
> > job, but it is what separates a good web designer from one that is
> mediocre.
> > I don't know what the stats are for users using 640x480, and I don't
> care
> > what the exact number is... all I know is that there are a
significant
> > number of them. Until the day comes when the 640 x 480 resolution
> has become
> > completely obsolete - I will still cater to these users. Why?
> Because it is
> > our job to satisfy the needs of our clients - including the
ability to
> > attract and please the maximum number of users to their web site.
> When you
> > look at it this way - how can you not design to the "lowest common
> > denominator".
> >
> > I know I'll get flamed for this, but anyone who refuses to
> accommodate a 640
> > x 480 user is not doing their job.
> >
> > PS: Isn't there are JavaScript applet that detects the resolution
> and sends
> > the user to the appropriate page? Why not use that?
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Jake Moore
> > Internet Coordinator
> > Rebel Trail Web Design
> > 1-888-99-REBEL (997-3235)
> > http://www.rebeltrail.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ==
> If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying
forward
> into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact.
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free (at)yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
 
 
 

==
If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free (at)yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA