then there are people like me who will wait for a flash movie to
download if it looks good. ive waited for a 3mb site before. it was a
webdesign company. lost the url ages ago. but it was an amazing site.
im fully prepared to wait for flash to download. ..... but then simple
minds are pleased with simple things... so i wait:)

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Landry [mailto:lmlweb(at)lmlweb.com]
Sent: 25 July 2000 17:14
To: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
Subject: RE: browser size / stats


Not only that a lot of people are now able to view Flash.. it really
depends
on the connection speed. At home, using modem, I tend to skip over the
flash
because I'm not going to wait forever.

Laurie Landry
Creative Communications Coordinator
Web of Care.com
www.webofcare.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prentice
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 6:58 AM
> To: 'MEovino(at)ESTES-EXPRESS.COM'; Rob Prentice
> Cc: szcam; hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: RE: browser size / stats
>
>
> yes. i agree. (especialy for the 100% flash bit). but, people who cant
> view flash content isnt a problem. it is, but not as much as it was.
> and, its easy to rediect them if they havnt got it, or they can
choose.
> also, flash can put a .jpg or .gif inplace of where the flash movie
> would be. so have a static image rather than a moving one or whatever.
> flash is a realistic alternative now. unlike 8 months ago. shockwave
> however is different. only 52% of people can view that aparantly.
which
> is a shame i think in some way. the main one being i get along better
> wit director than i do with flash. but that is a personal preferance.
> but director is alor more versatile than flash. both have good and bad
> points. also..... it comes down to one of the biggest reasons ....
site
> design. if you NEED flash or not. the right tool for the right job.
...
> whatever.....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEovino(at)ESTES-EXPRESS.COM [mailto:MEovino(at)ESTES-EXPRESS.COM]
> Sent: 25 July 2000 14:52
> To: RJP(at)CLICKDMS.COM
> Cc: szcam; hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: RE: browser size / stats
>
>
>
> Yeah, but if that 8% is the wrong people (and knowing our customers,
> that's
> the case), you're still in trouble.  Don't get me wrong, I think Flash
> is
> super cool, I just know I have to keep everything to the lowest common
> denominator or I have problems.  But then again, people aren't going
to
> my
> site for its cool look, they want to know when their shipment will
> arrive.
> So I have to allow for that.
>
> Mike E.
>
> PS - My graphic artist is pining for the day when that figure is 100%
> and
> we can start doing some really neat stuff, and so am I.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RJP(at)CLICKDMS.COM on 07/25/2000 09:42:49 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  To:      "'MEovino(at)Estes-Express.com'"
>           <MEovino(at)Estes-Express.com>, szcam
>           <szcam(at)pub.sz.jsinfo.net>
>
>  cc:      hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
>
>
>
>  Subject: RE: browser size / stats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> according to recent statistics 92% of people on the internet are able
to
> view flash content. im not sure if i found the page about it while
> looking for stats for a site im doing or if it was a link on this
> mailing list somewhere. but here is the link anyway if i can find
it....
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/
>
> the survey was indipendant i think, so it isnt macromedia doctoring
the
> stats to suit them as alot of companies do.
> but never force anyone into viewing a flash site. whatever.....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEovino(at)Estes-Express.com [mailto:MEovino(at)Estes-Express.com]
> Sent: 25 July 2000 13:05
> To: szcam
> Cc: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: browser size
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Personally, I'd make sure your graphics are small enough to at least
fit
> at
> 640x480 without forcing a vertical scrollbar.  People who run at that
> resolution are used to everything looking huge, but even they don't
> appreciate having to scroll two directions to read your page.  If you
> KNOW
> that everyone in your audience will be using a certain resolution (and
> even
> that can be iffy, what if one particular person has a visual
impairment
> that requires her to run her monitor at a higher resolution?), then
you
> can
> get away with designing at a higher resolution.
>
> It looks like you have a commercial site (which I also do), so I'd
make
> it
> work at all resolutions.  Even people running low res have money ;-)
As
> for adaptively sized graphics, maybe Flash (I'm not sure)?  But that
> will
> require a plugin, which I personally avoid like the plague (I've been
> burned before).
>
> Mike Eovino
> E-commerce and Customer Development Manager
> Estes Express Lines
> http://www.estes-express.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "szcam" <szcam(at)pub.sz.jsinfo.net>(at)MAIL.HWG.ORG on 07/25/2000 04:39:01
AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Sent by: owner-hwg-techniques(at)MAIL.HWG.ORG
>
>  To:      <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
>
>  cc:
>
>
>
>  Subject: browser size
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi experts and lurkers,
>     As a relative newby and part-timer to designing for the Web I have
> been
> designing everything with my screen settings at 1024 x 728. Should the
> audience for my web pages be either using a non maximised browser or
> have a
> screen resolution smaller then they will sometimes see clipped images.
> Is there a way to have adaptive graphics so that the page adjusts to
the
> browser size. If there is not then is there a standard browser design
> size
> that people use.
>
> Any help greatly appreciated
> Mark Bolton
> http://www.boltonmedia.com
> Chinese Porcelain, Artwork
>
>
>
>
>

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

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