SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 151 to 172 of 172
  1. #151
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Luke
    Think less about weight and more about area... I can put 1000 lbs on my solid oak desk and it can hold it easily. However, it does not have the room to handle a 38" monitor even an LCD monitor.
    Seriously? You don't have a foot depth and about 3 feet across on your desk? I have that on my lousy desk, no problem.

    And of course, as mentioned earlier, if you mount, you don't use any desk space.

    I'm sure that dot pitch and frequency are important.
    However, it seems obvious to me that bigger monitor leads allows bigger text which is easier to read and a larger workspace, which can be more comfortable to use. Am I wrong?
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  2. #152
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    Am I wrong?
    Somewhat.

    Higher resolution does not mean a larger screen. Look at anti-aliasing. Something I would like to see is an increase of screen resolution to the point that we don't need anti-aliasing anymore. For example, if you want to print a sharp curve to paper, you would turn off anti-aliasing to make it look sharper, even though anti-aliasing tries to make it look sharper on screen.

    I think that screens will get bigger because of demand, atleast for the design/development crowd. The ability to show detailed (HTML code or a zoomed in image) and actual size (the web page in a browser, or a 100% view of the image) side by side are very useful. When I'm just running on my laptop screen, it feels very cramped.

    Have you seen stock exchanges or financial markets? They have rows of monitors, I'm sure there would be benifits there for using larger monitors.

    Douglas
    Hello World

  3. #153
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    Seriously? You don't have a foot depth and about 3 feet across on your desk? I have that on my lousy desk, no problem.
    You have nothing else on your desk?

    Mine currently holds a 19" CRT, a lamp, 2 CD racks for software, 6 books for work, a 10-key calculator, business cards, a coaster for my coffee cup and various other miscellaneous trinkets. Not everyone has space to mount a large monitor on the wall. There is no wall behind my desk but a window is there. Sure I could make room for such a large monitor but then the workspace wouldn't be comfortable to me to work in. If I was a graphic designer, then maybe but I am not. I don't even do much programming anymore.

    I think the best thing that a web designer can do is stop worrying so much about what equipment people are using now or in the future or trying to get them to upgrade hardware but instead create ways that make their websites comfortable to use for the widest section of people.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  4. #154
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My 19" CRT weighs a ton. I've never really felt the need to upgrade to anything with a bigger screen. But it would be very nice to get something with much less of a footprint and tonnage.

    Oh, and I don't think 800x600 should be abandoned.

  5. #155
    SitePoint Addict Pavel_Nedved's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok... well I think we can all agree on this:

    Question: When do we bail on 800x600?
    Answer: Not Yet.

  6. #156
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by csn
    My 19" CRT weighs a ton. I've never really felt the need to upgrade to anything with a bigger screen. But it would be very nice to get something with much less of a footprint and tonnage.
    If you moved to an LCD, you could have less footprint, less tonnage and a bigger screen at the same time! Might not be cheap though

    800*600... well, I wouldn't bail on it just yet for web design, atleast not totally, BUT at the same time, I don't have any plans to use 800*600 myself ever again, so in that sense I already have bailed from it!

    Douglas
    Hello World

  7. #157
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, plus I'm not sure if LCD's visual quality matches CRT yet.

    BTW, Sony just started mass production of (small) OLED screens.

  8. #158
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by csn
    Yeah, plus I'm not sure if LCD's visual quality matches CRT yet.
    particularly when it comes to faithful colour reproduction, i'm still sticking with a well calibrated CRT...but maybe i'm just old fashioned
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  9. #159
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by redux
    particularly when it comes to faithful colour reproduction, i'm still sticking with a well calibrated CRT...but maybe i'm just old fashioned
    Off Topic:

    Would that then explain your extensive non-digital camera collection?

  10. #160
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    touche'
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  11. #161
    Website Publisher incka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Wakefield, Airstrip One
    Posts
    1,039
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On a new design I am makin I am ignoring people on 800x600. They can still see the site funny, just there will be a horizonal scroll bar and on some pages they will have to use it.

    This will make them make thier screensizes larger therefore making a larger percent with higher resolution, and eventually we will do this on 1024x768 or whatever it is, but that should be 5 years at least.
    Sean Spurr @ Incka Limited
    Fun Games - put games on your site GamesForYourWebsite.com!
    Sites:ABCDEFGHIJ

  12. #162
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by incka
    This will make them make thier screensizes larger
    or it will make them leave your site, never to come back again...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  13. #163
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by incka
    This will make them make thier screensizes larger therefore making a larger percent with higher resolution, and eventually we will do this on 1024x768 or whatever it is, but that should be 5 years at least.
    So basically, we throw the concept of user preference out the window and force users to do things the way we want?

    Let's just hope users don't realize that they can go somewhere else and keep their own settings intact. Few people will change their resolutions to view one Web site.

    And then what about the people who want 800x600?... those who can't see that well on other resolutions, or those who just like it?

    I leave Web sites that don't let me browse the way I want to.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  14. #164
    SitePoint Guru wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A good site will look well in 800x600 up to 1280x1024 - other than that I basically ignore. You can´t and shouldn´t force people to change resolution.

  15. #165
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let's skip it now! Since 1999 I've had 800x600 in mind as the lowest resolution when designing web sites. When I now redesigned my personal web site, I decided that this is the time for not taking so much care of 800x600 anymore. Yes, you CAN still view my site in 800x600 without much problems, but it will definitely look much better in 1024x768 or higher. This goes for a lot of web sites on the net. Not to mention how boring it looks in 800x600. I've yet to see ANY site that looks nice in 800x600.

    For those people that still doesn't have a higher resolution than this: 'It's time to upgrade!'

    I know that a lot of people will probably say that it's easy to design a web site for all resolutions if you just do it the proper way, but I disagree. I think if you also must concider 800x600 when developing; you will have to limit yourself. Higher resolutions must and will suffer if you choose to include 800x600.

    I know about dynamic sites, percents and so on, but what about graphics?

    800x600 is dead. It's time for the world to move on

    Best regards,
    Sven
    http://hildebrandt.no/sven/

  16. #166
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdhild99
    800x600 is dead. It's time for the world to move on
    You've missed one point, which I only noticed after chatting to someone yesterday. There really are people out there with 1024x768 LCDs, who intentionaly lower their resolution to 800x600 (this is an LCD remember, so down shifting the resolution will make everything look fuzzy and bad) because it is easyir for them to read the larger text (despite said fuzzyness).

    The phenomenon was confirmed for me when I realized that that was exactly what my grandad had done to his computer, for the usability benifits. He probably wouldn't care if it looked like sh** either though...

    Douglas
    Hello World

  17. #167
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DougBTX
    There really are people out there with 1024x768 LCDs, who intentionaly lower their resolution to 800x600 (this is an LCD remember, so down shifting the resolution will make everything look fuzzy and bad) because it is easyir for them to read the larger text (despite said fuzzyness).
    It's a shame that people feel that lowering the resolution is the way to raise the size of the text.

    There's also raising the size of the text, after all.

    I guess this isn't so convenient or accessible in some systems.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  18. #168
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    It's a shame that people feel that lowering the resolution is the way to raise the size of the text.

    There's also raising the size of the text, after all.

    I guess this isn't so convenient or accessible in some systems.
    True... but there's also graphics, text in graphics, and Flash that need to be considered. Not all text is resizable... plus there's non-text content.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  19. #169
    SitePoint Wizard megamanXplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,099
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdhild99
    Let's skip it now! Since 1999 I've had 800x600 in mind as the lowest resolution when designing web sites. When I now redesigned my personal web site, I decided that this is the time for not taking so much care of 800x600 anymore. Yes, you CAN still view my site in 800x600 without much problems, but it will definitely look much better in 1024x768 or higher. This goes for a lot of web sites on the net. Not to mention how boring it looks in 800x600. I've yet to see ANY site that looks nice in 800x600.
    You're missing the point completely. People don't use the low resolutions for nice graphics, they use them for usability/accessibility purposes.

    For those people that still doesn't have a higher resolution than this: 'It's time to upgrade!'
    I'm sure everyone will be happy to shell out $300 USD for a new monitor and $50 USD for a new graphics card, just so they can see nice graphics and unreadable text...

    I know that a lot of people will probably say that it's easy to design a web site for all resolutions if you just do it the proper way, but I disagree. I think if you also must concider 800x600 when developing; you will have to limit yourself. Higher resolutions must and will suffer if you choose to include 800x600.
    You do not need to limit yourself, you just need to learn to attack problems differently.

    I know about dynamic sites, percents and so on, but what about graphics?
    Use background-image in CSS for placing images. If someone is on a low resolution then the image will simply be clipped away by the element's width instead of forcing it to stretch, and many people browse sites without CSS enabled so they will not load the images at all, saving you and themselves bandwidth.

    800x600 is dead. It's time for the world to move on
    It's about as dead as dialup connections *rolls eyes*

    You also have to remember that there are LOWER resolutions than that which should be catered to, such as PDAs and cellphones which are pretty small and cannot exceed certain resolutions until technology evolves enough to enable them to use floating interfaces like you see in science-fiction movies, which isn't going to happen soon.

  20. #170
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdhild99
    For those people that still doesn't have a higher resolution than this: 'It's time to upgrade!'
    It's not a performance upgrade... it's a user preference. You're insulting people who choose 800x600 because they like it better.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  21. #171
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i'm afraid this thread is becoming more and more useless, the longer it is...most people jump on here, see the thread title, don't bother to read the (long, admittedly) conversation and just put the usual "800x600? must upgrade, lamer" message on here...and the few good men (fatnewt, megaman and co) are just going over the same replies again. :sigh:
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  22. #172
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by redux
    i'm afraid this thread is becoming more and more useless, the longer it is...most people jump on here, see the thread title, don't bother to read the (long, admittedly) conversation and just put the usual "800x600? must upgrade, lamer" message on here...and the few good men (fatnewt, megaman and co) are just going over the same replies again. :sigh:
    Yep. Since this thread is so unproductive, I'm closing it. Feel free to discuss the finer and more specific aspects of screen resolution in another thread.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •