home | books | articles | gleanings | case studies | hire
other sites: widgetopia | blueprints for the web | metafooder


 


 


« we've been waiting for you! | main | Principia Tognazzinia »

resolution resolutions

The Human Factors article on monitor resolution has stirred up some fun debate:


rudy wrote:

this kinda sticks out -- "A website is best when it is designed for a monitor resolution that matches the monitor resolution of the majority of your users. This provides a full-screen layout for those who desire to use the full width of their monitor for web pages."


~ Error #1 "A website is best when it is designed for a monitor resolution" -- a web site is best when it is designed for what you *do* there


~ Error #2 "the monitor resolution of the majority of your users" -- so, by this logic it's safe not to code for the blind?


~ Error #3 "This provides a full-screen layout" -- in other words, they haven't quite mastered the liquid layout concept yet


~ Error #4 "for those who desire to use the full width of their monitor for web pages." -- which naturally includes all the clever people at human factors


and aardvark wrote

Dr. Bob Bailey (the report's author) and I have exchanged a few emails about the report, primarily to address his assertion that my article states "...that as monitors size get larger, offering larger viewable browsing areas, users tend to concurrently open more pages." This is not at all what my article states. In fact, my article tries to avoid drawing any conclusions, and simply shows the numbers. Now, the numbers suggest that people will surf full- screen up to 800x600, and that viewable window size is never the same as available screen real estate. The chart in the WebReview article pretty much shows it all. Dr. Bailey seems to understand my points, but I don't know if he'll be updating the report.


Other issues I had included his lack of understanding of liquid layouts, and even the comment, "To make it even more difficult, any serious discussion of monitor resolution also should include a discussion of monitor size." Monitor size is not a factor. Window size and screen resolution are the two factors.


And nobody even touched the bit-depth data I gathered...

Posted at April 27, 2001 08:41 AM


Comments

 

What I get from the article is: "hmm, people's monitors are all over the place, just like they have been and will continue to be. Better do flexible layouts."

Posted by andrew at April 27, 2001 10:04 AM


~~~

my Liquid Tables article on evolt.org

Posted by rudy at April 27, 2001 10:35 AM


~~~



Post a comment
*Name:


*Email Address:


URL:


Remember me?

Comments:

bold italic underline link


posting can be slow; please wait a few seconds before hitting the button again.

The extra-fine print
wording stolen by the more-eloquent-than-I kottke
The bold, italics, and link buttons (and associated shortcut keys) only work in IE 5+ on the PC.
Hearty discussion and unpopular viewpoints are welcome, but please keep comments on-topic and *civil*. Flaming, trolling, and ass-kissing comments are discouraged and may be deleted.
All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the comments system should be directed to me.


mail entry to a friend

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):




« we've been waiting for you! | main | Principia Tognazzinia »

 

 

 

home | books | articles | gleanings | case studies | hire
other sites: widgetopia | blueprints for the web | metafooder