browser width

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>>
>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
>> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
>> Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>
>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>> monitors.
>>
>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to fit
>> the images to what the window flows out to...
>>
>> Jeff
>>
> Jeff,
>
> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your site
> fluid so it uses the available space.

No, you didn't read what I wrote.

I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull images
that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window stats so
that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.

Images, I'm talking images...

Jeff
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug... DeleteThis @all.uk> wrote:

> Anyone have stats on browser widths?

1000 x 800 is still a big player, so you can't assume any bigger than
that. There's also a lot more variation than there was a few years
ago.

800x600 (an old, small desktop) is getting to the negligible level,
but 800x400 and the like (tiny palmtops) is getting more common. Wider
proportioned screens are also becoming more significant at these low
total resolutions, so vertical scrolling is even more an inevitable
necessity, but we should still work hard to avoid sideways-scrollling.

Bandwidth continues to increase, so the volume of an image is less
significant than the screen size. This is even true for mobile.

So all in all, fluid design is where it's at. I'm now using 600-ish
widths as a general default width for images (even in portrait) when
previously I'd have used 480. I'm careful not to do "narrow stripe"
design though.
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

John Hosking wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>>
>> Anyone have stats on browser widths?
>
>
> My FF is currently set to 1013px (viewport 1003px). IE is 1077 (but the
> scrollbars take up some space). My Opera is currently set to 969px. And
> my Lynx browser has a viewport width of 800px. HTH

Thanks.
>
>> I'll have a lot of images and would like to use as much size as
>> possible, typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a variety
>> of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>
>
> Sounds like work.

Actually not much. Server does all the work when I upload one larger
image. What I do is just specify the sizes in a config file and the
server reads this and makes the sizes needed. I prepend the size to the
image name. So if I upload my_pic.jpg, the server could make
700a-my_pic.jpg, 400w-my_pic.jpg and 300h-my_pic.jpg. Those would be a
max size in either dimension of 700px, a max width of 400px, and a max
height of 300px. It's easy to parse that way, you just add on the prefix
size you want to the base image name.

Why not make a single image of a size reasonable for
> downloading on the Web, and just always use that?

Because of all the browser widths. If you have an image that safely
fits in a 800px wide window (maybe 700px) it will look really small in a
1024 browser.

Now, I'm only doing this for gallery/slideshow pages, but I'll have a
lot of those. For a "normal" page of mixed text and images I won't and
shouldn't care. But if you just have one image and a small amount of
text you want that image to be relatively large for greater impact. You
don't want too much "whitespace" around the image.

Jeff
>
>>
>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>> monitors.
>
>
> My monitor does 1280px, but I almost never have my browser that wide.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On Oct 22, 9:40 am, Andy Dingley <ding....TakeThisOut@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug....TakeThisOut@all.uk> wrote:
>
> > Anyone have stats on browser widths?
>
> 1000 x 800 is still a big player, so you can't assume any bigger than
> that. There's also a lot more variation than there was a few years
> ago.
>
> 800x600 (an old, small desktop) is getting to the negligible level,
> but 800x400 and the like (tiny palmtops) is getting more common. Wider
> proportioned screens are also becoming more significant at these low
> total resolutions, so vertical scrolling is even more an inevitable
> necessity, but we should still work hard to avoid sideways-scrollling.
>
> Bandwidth continues to increase, so the volume of an image is less
> significant than the screen size. This is even true for mobile.
>
> So all in all, fluid design is where it's at. I'm now using 600-ish
> widths as a general default width for images (even in portrait) when
> previously I'd have used 480. I'm careful not to do "narrow stripe"
> design though.

Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser. You can
then have your images any size you like.
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>>>
>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
>>> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is
>>> use Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html
>>> to fit.
>>>
>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>>> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>>> monitors.
>>>
>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to fit
>>> the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your
>> site fluid so it uses the available space.
>
> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>
> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull images
> that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window stats so
> that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.
>
> Images, I'm talking images...
>
> Jeff
>>
>

Jeff,

Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.

As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized design,
you're going to lose much of your fluid design.

For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design won't fit
into a window smaller than that. That includes most cell phones - but
more importantly, it could include a lot of browser windows.

What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows size.
For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not taking
up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.

Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you should
plan the window for the images you're going to use. That is get images
which look good (and, if they have text, are readable) and plan your
layout around them. You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
shrink the images to make the page as a whole look better.

And don't mind the troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths?

My FF is currently set to 1013px (viewport 1003px). IE is 1077 (but the
scrollbars take up some space). My Opera is currently set to 969px. And
my Lynx browser has a viewport width of 800px. HTH

> I'll have a lot of images and
> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
> Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.

Sounds like work. Why not make a single image of a size reasonable for
downloading on the Web, and just always use that?

>
> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
> monitors.

My monitor does 1280px, but I almost never have my browser that wide.


--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and

The browser I have running right now (Firefox; I use more than one and
they're not all the same or conistent sizes) is running on a 1400x1050
monitor. Its viewport is 1054x844.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:44:18 -0400, Jeff <dont_bug_me DeleteThis @all.uk> wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your site
>> fluid so it uses the available space.
>
> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>
>>
You'll have to excuse Jerry - he wades in with a load of complete
tripe whenever he 'feels' he has something to offer, and the original
question is somewhat irrelevant...
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:30:25 -0400, Jeff put finger to keyboard and
typed:

> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
>would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
>Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>
>I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>monitors.

I run Google Analytics on all the sites I look after. On all of them,
1024x800 is still by far the most common screen size. I wouldn't
suggesting assuming a larger viewport any time in the near future.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!"
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
>>>> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is
>>>> use Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html
>>>> to fit.
>>>>
>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>>>> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>>>> monitors.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to
>>>> fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your
>>> site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>
>>
>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>
>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull
>> images that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window
>> stats so that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.
>>
>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>
> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized design,
> you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>
> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design won't fit
> into a window smaller than that. That includes most cell phones - but
> more importantly, it could include a lot of browser windows.
>
> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows size.

Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen size.


> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not taking up
> anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>
> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you should
> plan the window for the images you're going to use. That is get images
> which look good (and, if they have text, are readable) and plan your
> layout around them.

Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't want. I
want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit that rather have
the browser interpolate it, something browsers are not terribly good at.

Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:

<URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />

As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at 1250ish
browser widths.

You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the merits
of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically said that I
wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is certainly rare).

If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery" templates
up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic poet" who died
recently, which is why I'm updating. The images are very strong (some
startling) and need to speak (with a little verse) on their own, I don't
want a lot of "whitespace". The visual aspect is important and I
mentioned before these are gallery pages, not standard mixed text and
images html.

Jeff


You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
> shrink the images to make the page as a whole look better.
>
> And don't mind the troll.
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On 22 Oct, 14:25, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls... RemoveThis @subhuman.net> wrote:

> Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser.

FRO Travis
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam.DeleteThis@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:1193059529.673774.285010@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 9:40 am, Andy Dingley <ding....DeleteThis@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug....DeleteThis@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone have stats on browser widths?
>>
>> 1000 x 800 is still a big player, so you can't assume any bigger than
>> that. There's also a lot more variation than there was a few years
>> ago.
>>
>> 800x600 (an old, small desktop) is getting to the negligible level,
>> but 800x400 and the like (tiny palmtops) is getting more common. Wider
>> proportioned screens are also becoming more significant at these low
>> total resolutions, so vertical scrolling is even more an inevitable
>> necessity, but we should still work hard to avoid sideways-scrollling.
>>
>> Bandwidth continues to increase, so the volume of an image is less
>> significant than the screen size. This is even true for mobile.
>>
>> So all in all, fluid design is where it's at. I'm now using 600-ish
>> widths as a general default width for images (even in portrait) when
>> previously I'd have used 480. I'm careful not to do "narrow stripe"
>> design though.
>
> Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser. You can
> then have your images any size you like.

One can have images any size one likes (including exactly the size of the
browser canvas) without resorting to flash.

Ponders... does flash resize images better or worser than the native
browser?

--
Richard.
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images
>>>>> and would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do
>>>>> is use Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the
>>>>> html to fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot
>>>>> of people above that, particularly with the proliferation of
>>>>> widescreen monitors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to
>>>>> fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your
>>>> site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull
>>> images that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window
>>> stats so that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.
>>>
>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>
>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized design,
>> you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>
>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design won't
>> fit into a window smaller than that. That includes most cell phones -
>> but more importantly, it could include a lot of browser windows.
>>
>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows size.
>
> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen size.
>
>
>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not taking
>> up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>
>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you
>> should plan the window for the images you're going to use. That is
>> get images which look good (and, if they have text, are readable) and
>> plan your layout around them.
>
> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't want. I
> want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit that rather have
> the browser interpolate it, something browsers are not terribly good at.
>

Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to make the
page fluid.

> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:
>
> <URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>
> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at 1250ish
> browser widths.
>

That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple of sites
use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.

> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the merits of
> fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically said that I wasn't
> doing a fixed width design (which is certainly rare).
>
> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery" templates
> up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic poet" who died
> recently, which is why I'm updating. The images are very strong (some
> startling) and need to speak (with a little verse) on their own, I don't
> want a lot of "whitespace". The visual aspect is important and I
> mentioned before these are gallery pages, not standard mixed text and
> images html.
>
> Jeff
>

That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails, and if you
want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>
> You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
>> shrink the images to make the page as a whole look better.
>>
>> And don't mind the troll.
>>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex RemoveThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: browser width