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

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