[WEB4LIB] Re: E: Sort of an easy question - how to write a page that

[J.M. Latham]

When I left CPL we were purchasing the 17" monitors for all installations
-- true, we had the budget for it but we also didn't save enough going
back to the 15".

Joyce latham

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 Walt_Crawford at notes.rlg.org wrote:

> 
> I'll have to take issue with some of this:
> 
> >Most people are going to get the plain-jane 15" that comes standard with
> >the system, and a few will go for the 17" ones, but they will usually
> >end up using those at 800x600.  Remember, in Libraries and in
> >government, we have to aim for the lowest common denominator.  That is
> >still 640x480 which represents >75% of computer users.  At least now we
> >can use millions of colors rather than 256.
> 
> 1. Seems to me that most studies done of browser use show that 800x600 has
> been the majority resolution for some time now. I know that, if I was
> designing, I'd try to go for "fully useful at 640x480, optimized for
> 800x600, and effective at anything up to 1280x1024". Indeed, seems to me
> 800x600 represents something like 75% of Web users. (I've tried lowering my
> resolution to 640x480. It's amazing how little of any commercial Web site
> you can even _see_ on the first page, after the browser takes its inflated
> chunk of screen estate.)
> 
> 2. On the other hand, you really can't _safely_ use anything but the
> 200-odd Net-safe colors. Why would a business user have a PC set to use
> 24-bit color? 16-bit color--and, for most business use, even 8-bit
> color--lowers overhead and typically allows higher refresh rates.
> 
> 3. Dell, Gateway, and Micronpc ship 16"-viewable (17" theoretical) displays
> on all but the $799 entry models, and they make up a growing percentage of
> the personal and business market. Indeed, all of them include 18"-viewable
> displays on more powerful models. It's hard to believe that many people go
> to the trouble of degrading a PC to a 15" display to save $60-$70 (the
> price differential on Dell and Gateway $999-and-up models).
> 
> We have to support the lowest common denominator, but if we optimize for
> that level, we're getting in everyone else's way. (My own opinions
> only...and my personal Web pages are so underdesigned that none of this
> matters.)
> 
> -walt crawford, sitting at a 16"-viewable display running at 1024x768 (at
> work)-
>