"Sandy Pittendrigh" wrote

So how many readers of this newsgroup keep
their computer screens at low resolutions,
like 800x600?


The current 'standard' is to design for 800x600 ( which means that the
actual content is smaller than that because the edges of the browser take
space as do the toolbars etc.

It's not the problem it was a few years back, but different browsers also
display the same code differently, especially CSS with older browsers.

http://www.kimshew.com/design/useragent.php


I no longer give a ****, but when I had sites that needed to please everyone
I kept 4 or 5 browsers on my machine and tested all pages in them all.

The size-0-matic tool is free and helps with testing at different
resolutions ...get it here

http://www.pythoness.com/


It is very possible to design pages that scale decently

open a typical page on my site

http://tinyurl.com/mbbj3

and use size-o-matic to scale it ( or just drag the window to do so ) you
will see that all content is visible without horizonal scrolling at 800x600
but it still looks 'ok' at bigger sizes. The content on my site is
inserted into templates dynamically, so that same 'design' has to fit
content that varies a lot ... you can do nicer looking work with static
content pages

Another factor is slow downloads ... more and more people have fast
connections but the last figure I saw was that over half are still on
dial-up

http://www.kimshew.com/design/weight.php

I never bother to look at the "ton of pictures" TRs posted here because it
would take two hours of down load

Now this all is important if you're trying to generate traffic that will
make you money ... but I wouldn't worry about it for a personal site ... I
used to "webmaster" several sites that were commercial so I got into the
habit of 'lowest common denominator' pages ... but I'd suggest you suit
yourself with your site, unless you have daydreams of DotCom millions to be
made G