800x600 is SHIT
- Started
- Last post
- 46 Responses
- ribit0
Relative sizing doesnt really cater for sites such as ours (online magazine) that want to have a print-magazine-like layout (fixed layout, certain sized images, text in certain places relative to the images etc). We'd like to cater for smaller screens (PDA's) but we can't afford the extra development to do that yet... we don't even have a CMS yet!)
s&l... You would never have a fixed-size standard for the web.. It is by definition more diverse in usage and more interactive than TV.
- n_smooth0
"Relative sizing doesnt really cater for sites such as ours (online magazine) that want to have a print-magazine-like layout"
I disagree. http://www.wired.com/ is a good example of an online magazine. That uses relative sizing and works very well. You don't need it to look like a print magazine because it isn't printed.
Imagine if magazines were made to look like websites. You'd never be able to use the content page coz when you pressed the item you were interested in nothing would happen. ;-)
My point is you design for the medium so relative sizing is a viable option for all. Not suggesting it is the be all and end all either.
- ribit0
We could probably work with variable text column widths, but our problem is really one of budget... Our standard news pages show 4-6 images at 300 pixels wide, and about 300 pixel width text next to that. The only way to fit this on a PDA would be to use smaller images and to rearrange the whole template... which we just can't afford to even look at yet.... (no CMS, hardly any staff).
We do cater for our current audience who are using mainly 800x600 through to 1600x1024 screens, but to get more flexible we will have to wait for the CMS, and a more sophisticated image processing/database system... It all comes down to money in the end...
- davetufts0
n_smooth, wired is a GREAT example of how the online companion to a print magazine should be built.
here's an interview with one of Wired's designers:
http://devedge.netscape.com/view…...Wired's own explaination makes a lot of sense
http://www.wired.com/news/explan…
- CyBrainX0
So, 800x600 is probably down to about 40% by this site's stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browser…
Of course it depends on the audience. My company did a cd-rom for a company to use in-house. They knew EVERYONE had 1024x768.
We'll probably be getting to the point very soon where most sites will be designed for 1024x768, but have the navigation above the 800x600 fold.
There definitely comes a time where you write off the 800x600 people. Just like we started using javascript, stopped using web safe colors and started using Flash.
- ankixa0
"We are in 2004.
PPL who INSIST on having EVERYTHING FIT on a fucking ugly 800x600 screen WITHOUT SCROLLS, deserve to die or something. "We are nearing "ought.four".
DESIGNERS who believe they are ABOVE PEOPLE deserve to be shot or SOMETHING./rant.