[Web4lib] 800x600 Browser Resolution

[Roy Tennant]

Kevin,
I think you've missed the main point of those who argue for liquid layouts.
The point is to allow readers to decide for themselves what makes sense for
them. A newspaper _must_ make a decision regarding column width, and
therefore they must create a "lowest common denominator" style solution. But
with liquid layouts on the web, each individual user gets to decide for
themselves what works best for them. What's not to like about that? Why
force our users into one way of interacting with our sites when the
technology is offering us a better alternative?
Roy


On 8/2/06 10:00 AM, "Kevin.Cullen at UCHSC.edu" <Kevin.Cullen at UCHSC.edu> wrote:

> I would argue that wide-screen monitors are becoming an argument in
> favor of fixed-width layouts. On my 21" 1680 x 1050 LCD monitor, a Web
> site set to 80%-100% width is so wide that the text is unreadable.
> Granted, I don't normally have my browser window maximized on that
> monitor, but some people might.
> 
> Research has shown that the optimal width of text is 3.5 to 10 inches*
> (8.9 to 25.4cm). Anything longer is too hard to read. In an age when
> monitors are getting wider, and people are running two windows side by
> side, we can't make any presumptions about the width of their browser
> windows. On my monitor, a line of text could be as much as 48cm (18.9
> inches) long. That's way too much.
> 
> Think about broadsheet newspapers: They put text content in relatively
> narrow columns. Images are wider. Newspaper readers can adjust their
> width by folding the paper, and still be able to read the content
> reasonably well. Web designers should aim for the same.
> 
> * See this link: http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov02.asp
> 
> - Kevin Cullen
>   Denison Memorial Library - UCDHSC
>   kevin.cullen at uchsc.edu
>   303-315-0739 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:04:38 -0400
> From: Thomas Dowling <tdowling at ohiolink.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] 800x600 Browser Resolution
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Message-ID: <44CF7B96.3020608 at ohiolink.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Just pay close attention to Nielsen's definition of "optimize for
> 1024x768".  What this article doesn't make clear is that the number of
> users with 1280x1024 screens or above is roughly the same as the number
> with 800x600.  So if just the commonly seen display environments range
> to 150% of the low end, there's clearly no single width that fits enough
> users to justify the number you're ticking off.  Factor the likely
> changes to font sizes (more pixels to work with -> more pixels per
> character -> higher resolution text at the same physical size), and the
> increasing unpredictablity of *window* sizes as screen sizes grow, and
> it should be clear that any fixed-width design is a dead end.
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/