800*600 and above

[Sarah]

I spotted the thread that showed that majority of people used 800*600 and 1024*768 which is fine and using % in tables you can usually cover all basis.... But on a few of my sites I have a jpg as the background and I don't want it to tile because that spoils the effect, so I can use javascript to say depending on what size etc display various different sizes of the jpg file which work fine until (get on with it!) people that don't view in max size they would not be able to view it correctly, get annoyed etc....

What do people think is the best way for this? I persionally don't like the "white" around the centered main text as that doesn't give a wow impression, but I cannot not think of a good [B]fix[?B]...

Any thoughts / ideas and solutions most welcome

Sarah

[pony]

Um, not ure what you mean by "the "white" around the centered main text" but if you're not too bothered about your bg image being fully visible at all resolutions you could use one that was big enough not too tile in the highest resolution you care about and then live with its cropped appearance in lower resolutions.

That is what I've done here; http://www.telstarponies.com

[Jeremy W.]

Not to be nitpicky, but yours doesn't work ideally either...

http://server2.tacf.org/examples/ponies.jpg

[Sarah]

the problem being is that I have the whole of the front page as one background (on the first page) like this http://roadrunner.crxnet.com/btex/index.html which has been designed for 800*600 and 1024*768 (haven't yet done higher but capabilities are there) but when you look at this not full screen you lose the impact and some of the page...

Yours on part of a page with expanding table around it - slightly different

Not really a huge problem but I have another site (not live yet) which has a stunning photo on the first page and I don't want that impact to be lost on people - first impressions count

.. I shall keep on wondering though...

sarah

[pony]

duh! serve me right for not bothering to do a news archive section yet.

hmmm - this whole thread makes me wonder if the use of background images as a major part of a design is worthwhile.

Sarah, You rate first impressions highly but our background images are not the first thing to appear when loading for the first time.

[Jeremy W.]

Well, here's my take.

If it takes users more then 20 seconds to load the image, and that image is required for the user to have any clue what the site is about, first impressions will be "dang this is taking forever" or the like.

Yes you may get the wow factor from a certain percentage, but what about the rest that feel you've wasted their time?

There is also the issue of what does this page with the huge BG do?

If you are decreasing usability and perception simply for design you are not fulfilling the goal of keeping your site accessible (what do blind users get but 20 seconds of nothing), user-friendly (you are more concerned with the wow then what the visitors want) and information-full (this page conveys nothing that 3 lines of text couldn't).

Sorry to sound like I'm ragging on you, this is all totally my opinion and I wouldn't be offended if you dumped.

[Sarah]

Good points all of them - I think this is why I started this post as I was unsure myself. And I am starting to think that this isn't the way to go but then the other site which has this really stunning picture does make the whole site worthwhile plus because the site is about clothes selling and designing them its pertinent to the content, but I am happy leaving that as is because I can cover one side with white as the background fades to white. But I certainly don't want download times > 20 secs I try to aim for much less than that as I can't stand it so I don't expect others too. As for people selecting no pictures well they aren't going to go info this site anyway as its about buying clothes online! i.e. you have to view them...

Hmm not entirely sure where to go now though! Thanks for your thoughts and no offense taken at anything said (skin much too thick!), I don't know maybe its because I hate cluttered sites that have too much info on the page that I am trying to keep it simple! or clean but maybe not really achieving either!

Oh well I shall continue to ponder as that is after all my job!

cheers guys more thoughts very welcome

Sarah

[Jeremy W.]

Have fun with your think, maybe you could submit an article to the crier (crier@sitepoint.com) with your conclusions.

It doesn't need to be long, but sharing the lessons you've learned is key to SitePoint!

If you don't want to write it, email or pm me your thoughts and I'll write it up for you.

[Sarah]

okay will give it a go - thanks didn't know about that (I learn something new every 5 mins!!!)

Cheers

Sarah

[Jeremy W.]

Yeah, every contribution is welcome. Learning comes from teaching so you'll learn tonnes when you write

And if you have any problems, feel free to let me know (I'll edit it to if you want).

[Sarah]

aint that the truth!

might fly it past you anyway just to check you are happy with it! (plus that it makes sense and isn't totally ****!)

oh meant to say site seemed to be down earlier this morning? checked on a few machines but couldn't get access? Now it seems to be fine though?!

Sarah

[Jeremy W.]

Who's site? Mine?

Yeah, my host is rebuilding the servers... It was down for the last week. They switched all our sites to another machine until they fixed the problematic one so it'll be up, but slower then normal.

... or did you mean yours? *L*

[Sarah]

no not mine sitepoint?!

[Jeremy W.]

Oh *L* *barries (sp?) head in shame*

Yeah, it's been a bit hectic since we got slashdotted

Also a lot of updates going on

Sorry for the confusion.

[Sarah]

buries?!?

no probs! just meant that I had to do some work thats all

hey you can't expect to be perfect ALL the time!!

Sarah

[Jeremy W.]

true true