Re: screen resolution

by "Harold A. Driscoll" <harold(at)driscoll.chi.il.us>

 Date:  Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:23:50 -0600
 To:  denise(at)amun-ra.demon.co.uk
 Cc:  hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
 In-Reply-To:  demon
  todo: View Thread, Original
At 09:51 22-02-00 , denise wrote:
>Is there a particular screen resolution which I 
>should be working on when designing a website?   

Yep. The one appropriate for your application.

>I have based all mine previously on 800x600 to look 
>perfect, but acceptable on 640x480.  

That is good for many applications. Ideally, entry pages and some degree of
site navigation can be done somewhat smaller than 640x480 for the benefit
of non-computer browsers (such as Web-TV).

>I've been told that a lot of people now use 1024x768.

In some audiences they are abundant, in others less so. Your mileage will
vary.

1024x768 and higher works with large monitors and good graphics hardware
(including a quality monitor) and a reasonably-powered computer (browser
graphics processing is notoriously inefficient, eating a lot of computer
power). And typically requires some motivation to change configuration
settings at installation. 

But, yes, even many IT people can figure it out, so the same can be
expected of some home users.

>What size do you recommend?

The one appropriate for your application.

Keep in mind that the bigger you go, the more system and network resources
you will use... more load on the user's browser... more load on your
server... more of the pipes in between. So you'll want to be reasonably
efficient... to not use more without some benefit in return.

My rail photos site (URL below) illustrates how I've addressed this issue.
I'm not shy about providing 1200 x 450-900 pixel photos (ranging from about
100 KB to 450 KB, 250 KB perhaps typical.) For the couple thousand photos
with that depth of resolution, I've also half-sized (600 x 300-600 pixel)
images for those who so prefer.

At the risk of offending conventional-wisdom-bigots, I personally find it
disappointing (and sometimes annoying) with sites provide only tiny photos
(less-than-screen-site) and that lose lots of detail by doing so. So don't
fall for the lowest-common-denominator theory lock-stock-and-barrel.

Safe computing,  /Harold

ps. A rule of thumb, what was the computer configuration being sold to your
audience say the Xmas season before last? Such as department stores for a
consumer audience, and business dealers for a corporate audience. Not the
top of the line, but the models featured on sale. I'd suggest being able to
run well, as configured out of the box, and then exploit what you can do
and _also_ return value to your site guests.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll                 mailto:Harold(at)Driscoll.Chi.IL.US
Chicago Rail Photo Collection            http://Chicago.Railfan.Net
List of my Photo Web sites    http://Driscoll.Chi.IL.US/photos.html
#include <std/disclaimer>                 http://Driscoll.Chi.IL.US

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

This page is part of a preserved archive of archives.hwg.org. The site is no longer active and its content is not maintained. For enquiries about this archive, write to archive(at)iwanet.org.