PDA

View Full Version : Web Sites and Screen Resolution



AdamAvenali
05-08-2009, 06:51 AM
hey all,

so, it is time for me to start building my web site again and i need some help on what is a safe area. after some research i am reading that for a solid character artist gallery it is supposed to be simple and straight to the point, no splash pages, etc. just straight to the gallery and images. so, i have come up with a simple layout with some next and previous buttons, but i dont know how large i can make it to fit on one page without requiring scrolling. all of my monitors are turned up to their max resolution (one is on 1280x1024 and my laptop is at 1680x1050). is it safe to assume that a person in our industry is no longer working at 800x600? 1024x768? let's here some opinions :thumbsup:

thanks,
adam

colkai
05-08-2009, 07:23 AM
Must admit, we are catering in our software to 1024X768.
That said, most of our clients are public sector with very specific 'limitations' laid upon them.
I normally run at 1280X1024 on this PC, but don't have the eyesight to go higher. :)

AdamAvenali
05-08-2009, 07:43 AM
the problem i have with going with such a low resolution is that when i look at it on my screen i feel like i am wasting so much space. any free space means a bigger render and better quality :)

art
05-08-2009, 07:51 AM
I think that the percentage of people running 800x resolution is rather low today. Just to be safe I'd go with 1024 size, this seems to be the most common denominator these days. Or if your design/content is appropriate you can try to make if fluid so that it fills all space, but can be resized down to 1024 res (or whatever you choose as minimum)

trentonia
05-08-2009, 08:12 AM
Here are resolution stats according to thecounter.com global stats http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2009/March/res.php

cresshead
05-08-2009, 08:13 AM
depends who your trying to target, you should be able to run some stats on the screen res of your visitors.

i've just started to renew my site and opted for a width of 960 which is what the bbc are using on their site.

quite a few people run laptops thesedays which usually are 1280 x 800 so i make my initial page fit within that size with no scrolling anywhere in a non tabbed browser.

Red_Oddity
05-08-2009, 09:24 AM
go for a screen res of 1024x768, that's the safest bet.
That does mean that you have very little height though (counting the browser window, toolbar, quicktabs, statusbar and windows/mac taskbar all adds up very fast), so keep that in mind when designing the site.

adamredwoods
05-08-2009, 10:46 AM
go for a screen res of 1024x768, that's the safest bet.

I work for a major website, and the resolution is 1024x768 for largest audience. THe next size would be 1280.

Design the main content for 1024, but also give your 1280+ audience some attention, usually a repeatable background pattern.

Unfortunately, with the rise of the netbook or smartphone, sizes are starting to get smaller... but that's not important here.

Silkrooster
05-08-2009, 06:33 PM
Where ever possible uses percentages. Then you don't have to worry about what resolution their screen is. The down side to that is on large monitors you can end up with some large gapping holes, especially if some of your objects are using a fixed width.

AdamAvenali
05-08-2009, 09:35 PM
so, i decided to drop my screen res and see what kind of canvas i would be dealing with at 1024x768. here is the result. not too bad considering.

akademus
05-09-2009, 12:43 AM
1024x768 is what I use as the minimum for web site screen. I have no interest in people running less than that :D

Silkrooster
05-09-2009, 03:14 AM
1024x768 is my default size as well. But with my larger screen I am so tempted. :D

Sarford
05-09-2009, 03:44 AM
If the main thing is a galery, I would design it in Flash with a max of 1600 x 900 (or maybe even bigger). Then have people click a button for the gallery which than opens in a new window which you can specify to be full screen or close to it. For people with a smaller screen, flash would scale automaticly to their size, so everybody would see your gallery full screen without any scrolling.
You would need some fairly large pictures, but it would make an impression. Don't forget to set them to smooth in their properties though, otherwise you'd get funky scaling.

AdamAvenali
05-09-2009, 09:10 AM
If the main thing is a galery, I would design it in Flash with a max of 1600 x 900 (or maybe even bigger). Then have people click a button for the gallery which than opens in a new window which you can specify to be full screen or close to it. For people with a smaller screen, flash would scale automaticly to their size, so everybody would see your gallery full screen without any scrolling.
You would need some fairly large pictures, but it would make an impression. Don't forget to set them to smooth in their properties though, otherwise you'd get funky scaling.

i was trying to follow these guidelines:
http://www.game-artist.net/forums/spotlight-articles/415-general-your-portfolio-repels-jobs.html

no flash, no opening windows, etc. the less clicking the better. not to mention that from my experience with flash its not a good idea to let it rescale your images, up or down.

Sarford
05-10-2009, 05:58 AM
These are pretty good guidelines. Let me add two more...

- People are increadibly stupid. If things aren't the way they expect it to be (aka like other websites), they don't understand and thus won't click it/use it.

- People don't read. Even if you have a writen explanation of your navigation, people don't read it and thus don't know how your site works (for instance).

These two come from my own experience (statistics) with my own site.

Tom Wood
05-10-2009, 07:59 AM
I use 1024x768 but I've found the maximum width is effectively about 960 before a horizontal scrollbar kicks in. A vertical scrollbar is okay. I think Safari is most sensitive to the horizontal width.

You can see how your site will look in different browsers at: http://browsershots.org/

BTW, Wordpress has some gallery templates that make setting up a site like that relatively painless.