Page 1 of 2

Your Thoughts?

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 4:09 am
by evilcoder
tell me what you think

http://www.dnxnet.com

nothing works yet. but....

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:12 am
by Kriek
I dig the navigation and simplistic design. Very nice!

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:15 am
by crazyjimsmith
Your elements need to be bigger by about 10%. The buttons and sections may look good in 800 reso but in higher reso they will be way too small.

Looks good.

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 4:36 pm
by evilcoder
i'm actually working on that at the moment. I'm going to use javascript to work out the screen res, then change the css stile to equip for it.

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:02 pm
by evilcoder
ok its designed for 1024. What res should i go up to? I"m not to worried about 800 (although i should shouldn't i?)

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:13 pm
by evilcoder
i increased by 1px, and now it just looks goofy for 1024 users.

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 6:04 pm
by evilcoder
OK try that now! I've accounted for 1024, 1152 and 1280.

I'm trying to get 800 working, but i think my design is still to big to actually be seen in a screen res 800.

Hey Evil

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:52 am
by crazyjimsmith
Ok it looks good but I think you should still make everything about 15% to 10% bigger. From you logo to your buttons and also maybe your text.

I would strongly advise a fixed 800 resolution design. Have a look at my site for an example, or even better go to echoecho.com. Here are some stats on screen resolutions I got from there

SCREEN RESOLUTION
49% 800x600 49%
38% 1024x768 38%
04% 1280x1024 04%
03% 1152x864 03%
02% 640x480 02%
<1% 1600x1200 <1%

You can see for your self the two most important. You should design from the lowest up.

Now I want to ask you a question. I want to bulid a big graphics library. Is there any php scripts available? I saw someone build a site here somewhere but I cant find the post anymore

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:04 am
by evilcoder
well, if you are still using 600x400 today, you shound't be allowed to view any website. 800x600 maybe.

I'm making a separate site for people with 800x600, so eventually it will be cross res compatible.

I've also talked to about 50 people with high res screens and they say they like the small text, so i'm between a rock and hard place here.

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:22 am
by twigletmac
evilcoder wrote:well, if you are still using 600x400 today, you shound't be allowed to view any website
Or maybe you've got a prob with your site and have to use a low resolution setting in order to see the screen. However, I often feel the same way about Netscape 4 users but also know that there are some people can't just upgrade.

On a side note (because I am doing a lot of drudge work trying to make sure my company's site passes an RNIB audit) did you know that using fixed units for specifiying text sizes prevents the user from being able to adjust the size of the text on the page?

Mac

800

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:16 pm
by crazyjimsmith
When 50% of your viewing audience uses 800 why design for anything else? Also I always go for a fixed design. I know that evils site is a dynamic design. The one thing that I don't like about it is the massive bit of empty space on the lower half of the screen. I know that that will probably disappear once you start to get content for your site, but right now it doesnt look good.

I think you could get away with things when you say you want to focus on 1024 users because most tech heads probably use 1024 and you are simply designing for your target audience.

As for the css, well Jacob Nielson said something about using pt instead of pixels when setting your font sizes because px sets the font and you cannot change it. I know the oldies at my library like to crank up the font size on the computers there so he may have a point. I know I have stopped using px.

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:01 pm
by evilcoder
Ever tried graphic websites like mine using pt? it doesn't work when a nav bar MUST be 15px high otherwise it throws the whole design out.

Also pt is not cross browser compatible, and i'm well, happy that my site works on both netscape and IE, and to a very large extent OPERA.

See, my target audience are tech heads, some using ridiculously high resolutions, but i mean, if i sit here twiddling my thumbs trying to get the design to suit EVERYone, my site will never be running. I'm trying to do my best today to cross-res and cross-browser improve, but i dont know what else i can do.

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:27 pm
by phice
You design your site to all viewers. No matter what browser, screen resolution, or operating system.

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:03 pm
by evilcoder
thats all well and good if you want a site that looks ordinary. But the fact is i cant be wasting my time on creating a site for everyone where maybe 10% of my viewers aren't getting the optimum viewing.

Unfortunately majority rules, and with a site with so much dynamic content i can be spending a year on a design, if you know what i mean. bills add up when i waste time.

Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:52 am
by Johnm
thats all well and good if you want a site that looks ordinary. But the fact is i cant be wasting my time on creating a site for everyone where maybe 10% of my viewers aren't getting the optimum viewing.
I would re-consider my position if I were you. The company I work for requires that I code for that 10% (Including NN4). I can make the assumption all day long that it is not worth it, that is, until I look at the numbers. For 1000 hits a week, lets say 20% become actual sales from those 1000 hits. 52000 visits per year results in 10400 sales. The 10% that use the browsers you ignored, even at $100 per sale, represent over $104000 in sales. I can do a lot of coding to accommodate that kind of loss. Granted, the numbers that I used may be a bit skewed but I think that the point is valid.


John M