-
Box standard, wide audience website. is there any agreement of 8x6 or 10x7. . .whats the views?
i know its one of those questions thats regularly up
but it seems to be an equal vote on this issue.
-
Sadly, 800 x 600 for the general public.
1024 x 768 if you or the client control the display environment, or if requested by client.
Recently visited family and was appalled by their browser/access.
AOL at 800 x 600 on a SLOW 56K dial-up (and an animated cursor).
It took 5 minutes to upgrade their Flash player... ugh!
-
Gross Pecululatarian
Yeah, definitly 800x600.
I have 1024x768, and 56k
-
I agree with 800x600, some people may say 640x480 but the way i figure, if someone's stuck on 640x480 they probably can't run the flash player well anyways.
BTW, i'm also at 1024x768 and 56k
-
Cheers lads, thanks for sharing the views.
-
Heaven is made of 1's and 0's
I am at 1280 X 1024 - and have both a cable modem and dial up for access.
I think you should design for 800 X 600 always..
Until the norm becomes 1024 X 768
[b]hopefully soon -
-
they call me the_jump...
doods
this is a very helpful statistics page. It's the global stats for thecounter.com
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/April/res.php
--800x600---180284376-(51%)
-1024x768---125553454-(35%)
1280x1024----13477371--(3%)
--640x480----13031395--(3%)
-1152x864----10591910--(3%)
--Unknown-----4434890--(1%)
1600x1200-----2538649--(0%)
So 8+10= 86% of the market. Counter.com has a sufficently wide user base (ie not IT aligned) to be a good indicator.
I build for these res's 800x600 then 10x7, and use percentages to help the process. It's easier to get a site that looks good at 8x6 to look good at 10x7 than the other way round.
I will only build for 640x480 if my client has a style guide stating that and cannot be swayed (eg Compaq).
Also you should realise that 800x600 is good for those viewers with bad eyesight, a large number of people.
I'm one of the 0% that use 16x12. I can fit 4 8x6 windows in at the same time - IE6, NS6.1, PHPed, Flash.
I develop locally and surf at 33.6k. Yep that's right. Where I live in Sydney, Aus there is no big advantage using 56k due to crapp copper. And there is no cable.
I've had my trusty 33.6 modulator/demodulator for 6 years now. Not a peep of problems.
rgds
James
-
I think as monitors gradually destroy the public’s eyesight we will only seen an increase in popularity of the 800 x 600 res.
Peace
Shan
(blind)
-
same here, I run in 1024 x 768 but design for 800 x 600 upwards
-
Regardless of what resolution I am running, I design my sites for 800*600. Aim for that.
Mikhail
-
My rule of thumb is to make it look good in both. I try to get the page to fill out at 8x6, then check that it still holds its form in 10x7.
-
800x600 - My swf's are usually 720x420.
I'm on 2304x864 (2 monitos at 1152x864) and cable.
-
Retired Mod
Originally posted by kb1827
800x600 - My swf's are usually 720x420.
i design to 720 width as well
-
It's quite practical, I find...plenty of room to design in, while small enough for low res monitors.
-
An Inconvenient Serving Size
Yep, 8x6 is (currently) the way to go. I've only had one customer who specifically requested 1024x768, and the only reason he decided to offer/develop both was because he saw an 800x600 movie in the center of his larger-settings monitor (just a coincidence - this guy couldn't set his watch, let alone his monitor size) and thought it looked 'wrong'.
I had to make the 2nd (larger) site on my wife's pc, 'cause the geriatric Toshiba laptop which I use, although loaded to the gills with RAM, can only display a max of 8x6. Oh yeah - in Brazil they are light years ahead of most other countries when it comes to wide band. I've got a screaming cable line which is awesome.
-
Originally posted by hurricaneone
I've only had one customer who specifically requested 1024x768, and the only reason he decided to offer/develop both was because he saw an 800x600 movie in the center of his larger-settings monitor (just a coincidence - this guy couldn't set his watch, let alone his monitor size) and thought it looked 'wrong'.
You should have very carefully, but very professionally, explained why this was not the best thing to do. Not the first time a client woudln't know the full story.
800 x 600 without a doubt, wich boils down to 760 x 440 canvas space (allowing for broswer borders, buttons...etc)
-
they call me the_jump...
agreed, but:
using %ages allows your SWF to look a bit more interesting at 10x7. For instance you can have offscreen (at 8x6) bits and bobs of the design visible at 10x7. Of course this content shouldn't be vital for the 8x6 visitor.
using wmode=transparent for IE users eliminates the square box effect and lets the swf 'run' into the browser bgcolor.
Caused by SWF jpegs being rendered slightly differently to the bg color rendering.
I do phtml or html sites for 800x600 that 'upgrade' gracefully to 10x7.
Here's a tip if you run your screen at high res (10x7 or higher). Make your background have some points on it that represent lower screen res's that way you don't have to resize the screen in display settings.
For instance I run at 1600x1200. My background is a nice Cassini image of Jupiter taken during the Dec 2000 flyby. I have manipulated it so the Jupiter's moons are at 640,800,1024,1152 and 1280 res's.
Makes it easy to just resize a browser window!.
cheers
James
i'll do a screenshot if you want.
-
An Inconvenient Serving Size
To TheOriginalFlashDavo,
I tried to tell the guy that 8x6 was the standard, but this fella was just about as bad as they get. Despite the fact that he had problems turning on his machine, because he was writing the cheques obviously made him qualified to have a say on just about every bleeding thing that went into the design of the site. So basically, everytime the 'final' revisions were submitted (personally, not on-line, just so as to instantly counter any negatives), and we'd walk out of there with yet another cheque and list of rewrites, redesigns, re-this, re-that - you get the picture. This, after he'd been through some idiotic brain-storming sessions in which he'd have some office morons do a little role playing exercise to 'pretend' what content they'd want on the site. (yawn).
Now, I hear you say, hey, you're getting cheques, they're not bouncing, what's the problem? Well, to that I say, in my opinion, there's just about a limit to the amount of rewrites a site can take before it starts to lose it's edge - becoming a dull grey shadow of its formerly clean, shiny self. And that's where I start to lose interest, whatever the payment arrangements. The final outcome of this (thank God, says you!), was that we've recently handed this 'client' (read 'annoying itch that wouldn't go away') over to a 'partner' site builders, and gratifyingly, they're having exactly the same problems. This was two months ago and let me check... yep, as I expected, still no live site.
Sorry to rant, but I speak not lightly, off the cuff, but from the real-life lessons taught by the hard dungeon mistress who goes by the name of Experience (available for parties, excellent rates, weekends too).
Cheers
-
they call me the_jump...
H-One:
Given that payment was not a problem here it's probably easier to let the client know what you think of their constant input read: increase in their costs.
Putting finances firmly in the client's lap tends to make them more aware of what they are doing. (tends)
I find trying to head these things off prior to when they will happen makes for a smoother development process.
I use this process:
0.Client has chosen you to do project.
1.Initial site meeting
-client's brief to you
-outline what you can do for them in that regard.
-payment options (bulk, initial, staged)
2.Submit project outline, quote, inclusions, exclusions
- I use exclusions as a backstop to what happened to you above. "Any content added to the brief after final agreement and sign off will be charged at the applicable rates".
- Initial design, screenshots, layout, backend (if applicable)
- Client comments
- Alterations if required
3.Client agreement. Signed and Dated. (possibly witnessed if you have an ill feeling about the client.)
4.Initial payment stage 1 - all of the above
5.Start development (only if 4. is received).
6.Supply stages to client when payment for that stage is received.
N.Completed project sign-off, start maintenance contract (if applicable0.
----
This is similar to what happens in the building industry (former life in architecture). You have to have client agreements at each stage otherwise the builder will down tools and leave. (I want a different roof than the one on the plans!)
You have to be confident enough to say to a client "You understand that these items were not in the initial agreement. These are exclusions and will be charged at the applicable rate."
Of course, you might give them some leeway if the are very minor changes. That's your discretion.
Cheers
James
-
An Inconvenient Serving Size
Hey, le_saut
Your outline of client process basically mirrors the exact system we've developed through trial and error with the gaining of experience (Hey, where we you 2 1/2 years ago??!!). What this fella was all about was using our time as a drawing board for his wacked ideas about what was good for his site, and sure, if we were a bigger company (and the cheques kept coming), it'd be fine. But as we're a pretty small outfit, we need to get deals, make sites, move on, end of story; not have clients hanging around like terminal diseases taking time away from the development of new business.
Tell you what, the fact that the next company who dealt with this guy had the same basic horror stories that we were facing (they're a bigger outfit, so can stand higher percentages of idiocy) was enough to make me feel good about handing this one off. I mean, how many times can you present the site saying, 'Let me present the final draft of your new site...' with the jackass coming back with, 'I'll tell you you're done when you're done'. Not exactly like that, but you get the idea.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|