Re: screen resolution

Karen:

The "problem" associated with screen resolution is simply that there are
significant percentages of the surfers/viewers who have monitors with all
these different resolutions. (And color depth--but that's a different bundle
of snakes.)

The generally accepted "standard" at present is probably 800x600. But, just
as you have read, many are still using 640x480. Of course, many are using
much higher resolutions too. Then there are the so-called Mac sizes. This is
a misnomer as Mac's run monitors of every conceivable resolution too. (Not
sure about those little gum drops though??) And--as you already suspect--the
problem is exacerbated when most run their browsers at sizes smaller than
full screen. ( Quote: "You done got to leave room on your desktop for drag
and drop and such.")

Please understand, there is a large difference between the resolution of a
monitor and changing the size of the browser relative to that screen. For
example, a GIF that is 200 pixels wide will always be 200 pixels wide, no
matter what size you make the browser. On the other hand, the 200 pixel wide
GIF will look very different on a 640x480 screen than it would at 1600x1200
resolution. The image would take up nearly a third of the screen at 640x480
but just over one-seventh of the width of the 1600x1200 screen.

(Remember that the browser borders and screen masking can also eat up
available space.)

It is easy to see that our 200 pixel GIF might take up nearly half of the
available room if a viewer had their browser scaled down and were using a
640x480 screen.

What can the viewer do to get more room?? Not much really except buy a newer
monitor that allows higher resolutions. Even here, if you use a high
resolution, things get rather tiny on small monitors. They can save a little
room by making the size of the fonts smaller.

Two problem exist for even this. One--small text gets awfully ragged on low
resolution monitors. Two--many webmasters use "fixed" text sizes that
eliminate that option. (This may be against "Bobby" recommendations but they
don't care. Those web authors are more concerned with positioning than
readability.)

What can you do?? Again, not much. You can design your site to have as much
flexibility as possible. Do NOT use absolute positioning, fixed text sizes
or tables set to pixels rather than percentages. Keep your images as small
as practical. (Good idea anyway for fast page loading) In this way, you let
the viewers have as much control over your site as possible.

Of course, this requires some forethought to what will happen to the
elements as they get "squished" about ???

The reasoning behind giving up this control is that these individual viewers
are used to their equipment and have made the adjustments to suit their own
viewing needs. Especially the sight impaired.

Sorry--I really haven't given you much in the way of advise or direction but
this is an area that none of us have ever "solved" to everyone's
satisfaction--and in most cases--not even our own ....

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/
www.newsredding.com/


> Hi all!<br>
> I've been lurking here for months and learning so much!  Thank
> you all very much.
> I'm a newbie to web design and am still trying to get it all
> figured out. My question is on screen resolution.  I keep reading
> about how you need to check out your site design on a 640 x 480
> monitor.  I took this to mean that I go into Display on my
> Windows computer and and change Settings to 640x480.  This looks
> horrific however.  Everything becomes huge and I can't access
> half of my desktop.  Do I not understand or am I doing this
> wrong?  Also, how about smaller screen sizes?  I assume I can
> check that just by resizing my browser screen?<br>
> TIA<br>
> Karen<br>
>
>
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA