browser width

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Everything is getting bigger.
>

To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest monitor,
or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full screen - whatever.

>>
>>> 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,
>
> Of course.
>
> and if you
>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>
> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
> Have you ever done a gallery page?
>
> Jeff
>

Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.

For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800.
Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my
window to see the larger of the two.

It's all about giving the customer what they want.

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

rf wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam.RemoveThis@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:1193059529.673774.285010@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 22, 9:40 am, Andy Dingley <ding....RemoveThis@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug....RemoveThis@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?
>

Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
a browser, and if the image is particularly large you can preload it and
give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>
>
> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest monitor,
> or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full screen - whatever.

You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>
>>>
>>>> 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,
>>
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> and if you
>>
>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>
>>
>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
>> Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
> which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
>
> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800. Now
> I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my window
> to see the larger of the two.
>
> It's all about giving the customer what they want.

Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they want
and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them 5 choices.

Jeff
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 22 Oct, 14:25, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls....DeleteThis@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>> Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser.
>
> FRO Travis
>

?

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>
>> FRO Travis
>
> ?

Final Restraining Order?

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=fro

--
Berg
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>
>>
>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>> screen - whatever.
>
> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
> resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
> wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?

Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.

Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother, who
can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
typically runs one window at full screen size.

But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their potential
customers.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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,
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> and if you
>>>
>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
>>> Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>
>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
>> which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
>>
>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800.
>> Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my
>> window to see the larger of the two.
>>
>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>
> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they want
> and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them 5 choices.
>
> Jeff
>>
>

Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate more
than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the like.

But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine. It is your
site, after all.

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

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:03:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
> [snip discussion of browser widths]
> 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.


I should mention that that graph is slightly misleading due to the peaks
from maximised browsers at common screen resolutions swamping all the other
data. I've also created a version that groups the data into 50-pixel
chunks, although I haven't attached a scale yet:


http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics-average.php


--
Safalra (Stephen Morley)

Sortable Tables In JavaScript:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/javascript/sortable-tables/
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:03:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
>>[snip discussion of browser widths]
>> 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.
>
>
>
> I should mention that that graph is slightly misleading due to the peaks
> from maximised browsers at common screen resolutions swamping all the other
> data. I've also created a version that groups the data into 50-pixel
> chunks, although I haven't attached a scale yet:
>
>
> http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics-average.php
>
>
Thanks. Can you put a scale to that so we can get a better idea?

Jeff
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

SpaceGirl wrote:

> rf wrote:
>> "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?
>>
>
> Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
> serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
> a browser, and if the image is particularly large you can preload it and
> give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
> rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.


They may just get a blank screen anyway.

I just visited northleithmill.com and found "This content requires the
Macromedia Flash Player.Get Flash", which is rather odd as I actually do
have flash installed and enabled on this machine. I can watch flash movies
on youtube for example.



--
Brian Wakem
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Brian Wakem wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:

> I just visited northleithmill.com and found "This content requires the
> Macromedia Flash Player.Get Flash", which is rather odd as I actually do
> have flash installed and enabled on this machine. I can watch flash movies
> on youtube for example.

Yeah we never get time to update NLM YOu're not missing anything to
be honest

Reason for the message - you need Flash 9 (47) at least. 96% of people
have it installed, but there are still a few of you out there!

YouTube uses Flash 8.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

SpaceGirl wrote:

> Brian Wakem wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> I just visited northleithmill.com and found "This content requires the
>> Macromedia Flash Player.Get Flash", which is rather odd as I actually do
>> have flash installed and enabled on this machine. I can watch flash
>> movies on youtube for example.
>
> Yeah we never get time to update NLM YOu're not missing anything to
> be honest
>
> Reason for the message - you need Flash 9 (47) at least. 96% of people
> have it installed, but there are still a few of you out there!
>
> YouTube uses Flash 8.


Youtube uses 8? I have 7.0.63.0 installed. Oh well, I cannot say I fell
compelled to upgrade.


--
Brian Wakem
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Brian Wakem wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:

> Youtube uses 8? I have 7.0.63.0 installed. Oh well, I cannot say I fell
> compelled to upgrade.

Oh! Guess I'm wrong then.

8 has a much MUCH better video codec... and 9 now has HD codecs and
hardware support (super fast).

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:47:16 -0400, Jeff wrote:
> Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:03:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>[snip discussion of browser widths]
>>> 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.
>>
>> I should mention that that graph is slightly misleading due to the peaks
>> from maximised browsers at common screen resolutions swamping all the other
>> data. I've also created a version that groups the data into 50-pixel
>> chunks, although I haven't attached a scale yet:
>>
>> http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics-average.php
>>
> Thanks. Can you put a scale to that so we can get a better idea?


Done. At some point I'll neaten it up and make it into a proper page on the
site. It coded it quickly to get some kind of idea of the distribution, and
only posted a link on Usenet because it was relevant to the discussion. The
graph really should be an image, but it was quicker to make it out of divs.


--
Safalra (Stephen Morley)

Sortable Tables In JavaScript:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/javascript/sortable-tables/
 >> Stay informed about: browser width