To go 1024, or not to...

[jonnya]

I have landed a lucrative contract with a commerical photographer, and am just about to start a HTML/Flash hybrid site.

I have already drawn out a tableset that would hold scalable flash navigation/interface using about a third of the width of the screen, and in the other frame the images would load (pure HTML, driven with a MySQL database)

The guy runs his monitor in 1600x1200, and I would have thought that most of his clients would be using 1024x768.

The thought of the day is... do I go for a 1024x768 design??

If I do, and someone visits in 640x480, or even 800x600 the flash content will be set to scale, so that would be fine, no scroll bars there, but the HTML window would have horizontal and vertical scroll bars on...

What do you think... would it be better to design it to be optimised for 800x600 (aprox 760x420 safe area) as I do most sites... or jump in straight at the deep end and go for my first 1024x768 design and make the most of the images (they are soooo good it would be a shame to make them little!!)

If I went for the 800x600 solution, I thought that you could open a high res one in a java controlled pop-up if you wish to see it bigger... so whats your opinion, go for the high res straight into the interface and put up with scroll bars on some set-ups, or go for smaller quicker loading images that fit in the interface, with a choice of seeing a bigger one in a pop-up??

Only sensible advice/opinions please... I know I'm already breaking all the rules, so don't start telling me I shouldn't be using Flash/frames/anything above 320x200, becuase the client has specifically asked for a Flash solution, and it has been built into the quote!!

[Maelstrom]

First off - congrats on the contract.

Secondly. Does he know his own market. It may be best for you to do a little market research in his chosen field of sales.

That would surely help but for a commercial photographer, I assume you mean he sells his product to large companies etc...I don't think you would have a problem coding this to 1024x768. I am usually against just designing for that size but for 'show' sites you need to optimize the design and you just can't do that with 800x600

[JoePrice]

personally i'd generate the site for 800x600 up

horizontal scrollers are always a major turnoff in my opinion.


however, if you could eliminate the horizontal scrolling problem if you did design for 1024x768, you could use some more attractive scrolling bars made in javascript to do away with the standard ugly ie ones.

[Ian Glass]

Don't design for that large a monitor. When I see stuff that large on my 800x600 resolution, I look for excuses to use the back button. I also think that once you start to get to 1024, people really stop maximizing their browser windows.

Anyway, can't flash scale to fit your window size. :-)

~~Hope This Helps

[jonnya]

Interesting feedback already guys... thanks

Ian, I stated in my first post that the flash content would be designed to scale in one frame... but good point anyway!

Buzz, yes, that is also a possible solution... good food for thought.

Still sitting in the 1024 camp at the moment... 800x600 just aint gonna cut it. For instance, of course we want to keep the images a uniform maximum size, be they portrait or landscape. So, if we went for..say a max height of 380px to keep it totally in the safe zone, we would end up with tiny images on 1024x768, and above that, well you may as well forget it! I know this from experience, my site is optimised for 800x600, and the images are about 320 max height I think... They look very small at 1280x1024 which is waht my main design system runs in. I'm going for the pop-up solution when I've sorted 100 and 1 other things for my personal site by the way!

[creole]

Does he have an existing site? If so, does he have a states generator? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then check the stats for resolution. If most of the people visiting his site use a certain res then design for them. Specialty situations call for special solutions.

[shane]

Could you not use some JS to detect the screen height/width and serve up different size images to users with different resolutions?

This'd mean creating multiple images at different sizes, which I guess would require more work for your client, but it's an option.

[Adam P.]

I would say 800x600

[creole]

Just to point out that this would require very little work in the way of imaging. Photoshop could easily batch an image and provide it in multiple sizes in their own resolution based folders.

[jonnya]

The back end of doing an 800x600 version would actually be very little extra hastle, as the site is being database driven... so that is food for thought. However, I'm not very keen on relying on Javascript to detect the resolution, bit flakey... but I suppose it's better than always having scrollbars in 800x600... very good suggestion

We have already envisaged that we would give him a couple of Photoshop actions to make his life easier (as of course, he does have Photoshop). I know for a fact that his existing site doesn't have any tracking on it, which is a shame, becuase thats also very good point.

Thankyou once again to the people that have posted such sensible answers to this post

[Maelstrom]

The only downfall of programming that large (I know I said to but) is the size of the file and length of the dl. Some of the people who would want the better graphic may not like the wait.

[jonnya]

The Flash content would be about the same size, as that will be pretty much pure vector work, which will scale. I'm not too bothered about the image size either to be honest with you either... I estimate the images would be between 20-45k a piece, which for a large image is not too bad (also bear in mind they have clicked through a reasonably sized thumbnail to get to it). I think people would be prepared to wait (esp if you saw the quality of these images!!)

[lloydi]

So, you're telling me you're not going to consider making it work on 240 x 320? Awww, how am I gonna see this on my Pocket PC now

[jonnya]

Next time maybe!!

I look forward to developing for those kind of devices in the future though, but not on this project

[Mr ilind]

I would makethe site in a 1024*768 resolution.


greetz

[Ravedesigns]

Most of the traffic to my companies site has been 800x600 todate, but 1024 is quickly gaining! A good sampling of data from "The Counter" shows 800x600 as the most popular though.

Interesting note though, all of the laptops our company has ordered from Dell lately come shipped at 1600!!

Good luck with the project!

Regards,

Steve

[jonnya]

Ohh, nice! My laptop has got a 16meg Geforce2go chipset in, but the native resolution is 1024 of the screen... wow, I never heard of any laptops shipping with 1600 res, I am very envious (they must have BIG screens too!).

[lennymos123]

ship me a laptop with 1600 res. now please :-). I wonder when they will arrive in the techno capital of UK, Birmingham. jonnya ? lol

Come on u Baggies !

[jonnya]

Im kinda dubious about this one... I do follow techie stuff a-lot, and havn't heard of any laptops shipping with 1600x1200 res... they would have to have AT LEAST 17in screens...which is also unheard of (even at 17in, 1600 res is very little!). I think we may have our numbers/messages mixed up here (unfortunately!!).

[platinum]

My dads laptop goes up to 1600x1200 (not shipped though)... thats on a 15.7" LCD.

Maybe you should have a warning or somthing before they enter (you'll need one for flash anyhow ) with 'it is reccomended that you use 1024x768 to view this site.

But moniter the stats... if the majority of visitors run at 800x600, you might consider changing

[Scud]

I hate scaling, but like most others said, find out who will be looking at this site. If other photographers that use large monitors and such at high resolution, go for it. Otherwise I tend to stay 800x600 at max.