screen resolutions

Hello.

Does anyone have good links to current (or older) statistics for surfer´s
screen resolutions? Would be very helpful in a present discussion about
mostly used configurations.
Thanks in advance.

Sebastian

"Anthony Buckland" <buckland@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3F047378.8090303@direct.ca...

>Evidently, some people think
> resolution
> does matter, or there wouldn't be a market for stats including
> resolution.

They are mistaken. There's a lot of mistaken people out there. Try not to follow
them.

> Why
> shouldn't resolution matter, and why should knowing resolutions be thought
> useless?

See my previous reply. Resolution doesn't matter, window size does, but you
can't gather statistics about that. The best solution is to make web-pages that
cope well whatever happens.

--
Andrew Davidson

In article <3F047378.8090303@direct.ca>, buckland@direct.ca says...
> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
>
> >In article <be1qke$oad$02$1@news.t-online.com>, webproject@t-online.de
> >says...
> >
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>Does anyone have good links to current (or older) statistics for surfer´s
> >>screen resolutions? Would be very helpful in a present discussion about
> >>mostly used configurations.
> >>
> >
> >In terms of a web site, screen resolution shouldn't matter. In fact,
> >knowing the user's resolution is useless.
> >
> >In the meantime, try http://www.thecounter.com/ - look for their global
> >stats. page.
> >
> Thanks for that pointer, I wanted to find out too. In May, more or less
> evenly split
> between 800 by 600 and 1024 by 768, with almost trivial usage of some other
> resolutions. I test my own stuff at those two resolutions for
> appearance, and it's
> good to know that that's adequate today. Evidently, some people think
> resolution
> does matter, or there wouldn't be a market for stats including
> resolution. Why
> shouldn't resolution matter, and why should knowing resolutions be thought
> useless? If a page layout includes images of specified dimensions,
> then resolution
> is going to matter with respect to how the images will be placed, how
> much room
> they will take up relative to text, column width and page width, whether
> images
> will be in the same column as text about them, and whether or not the
> page will be
> displayed all at once on a single screen.
>
That's the misleading assumption that new developers make. For example,
my resolution is 1600z1200. Currently, my browser has about 500w x
1000h of me screen area. I also have toolbars that eat in to the
available desktop space. Knowing my resolution won't help you place
images so that your design looks nice - that's why we have fluid designs
which are, fortunately, becoming more popular.

--
Hywel Never knowingly understood
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

>From: webproject@t-online.de
>(Sebastian*Sowa)
>Hello.
>Does anyone have good links to current
>(or older) statistics for surfer´s screen
>resolutions?

http://www.thecounter.com

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com

"Sebastian Sowa" <webproject@t-online.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:be1qke$oad$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello.
>
> Does anyone have good links to current (or older) statistics for surfer´s
> screen resolutions? Would be very helpful in a present discussion about
> mostly used configurations.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>

Thanks a lot. I currently try to fit webpages to nearly all resolutions (as
long as this is my measurement on proper screen-size fixing).

For that, 800x600 sets my basic requirement, what I wanted to get undergrid
on statistics.

Sebastian

"Sebastian Sowa" <webproject@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:be1qke$oad$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello.
>
> Does anyone have good links to current (or older) statistics for surfer´s
> screen resolutions? Would be very helpful in a present discussion about
> mostly used configurations.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Sebastian
>
>

I try to design my pages at 1024x768 but leaving room in case some one uses
800x600.
I'd say since the advent of windows98, SR has been fairly standard at
1024x768.
The stats on my sites show this being true for the vast majority of
visitors.
What I don't like are the guys who insist upon cramming fine print on the
page as much as possible, then on either side, and in the middle, diluge us
with ads. That sucks.

While the city slept, Anthony Buckland <buckland@direct.ca> feverishly
typed:

> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
[screen resolution - bad idea but...]
>> In the meantime, try http://www.thecounter.com/ - look for their
>> global stats. page.
> Evidently, some people think resolution does matter, or there
> wouldn't be a market for stats including resolution.

That is a free site. There is, therefore, no commercial market for those
stats.

As has been said by many others, screen resolution is completely irrelevant.
You could be presented on a super-dooper monitor running at 1280x1024
(though the browser window is probably far below that) or you could be
running on a very expensive, top-of-the-range mobile phone running at
whatever low resolution such things use... You should still be able to
deliver your product to a respectable degree or your client is going to get
a little cheesed off!

Cheers,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss.

Email address is not valid. nigel@nigenetDOG.org.uk. Take the dog out!
http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
"They got the mustard out!"

> Well, there's definitely a statistical correspondence between resolution and window-size, so knowing resolution stats can help a lot.

Just to back this up a little - close to 100% of the non-geek users I've observed or asked maximize the browser window, right up to 1024 x 768 and beyond. They are almost all very surprised when I point out that there's any other option. My estimate is that the large majority of users have the browser window maximized, though usually with all browser toolbars visible and often with a browser sidebar open all the time.

Just in case anybody misses the point, I agree wholeheartedly that web pages should be designed to look decent at just about any window size. I just refute this insistence that resolutions statistics are completely irrelevant - they're actually pretty helpful in getting a clue as to what users are probably seeing.

--
P@tty Ayers
http://www.WebDevBiz.com
Web Design Contract, Estimate Worksheet
--

P@tty Ayers wrote:

>> Well, there's definitely a statistical correspondence between
>> resolution and window-size, so knowing resolution stats can help a
>> lot.

Hmm, I use a higher than average resolution and usually window sizes
smaller than 800x600, so knowing resolution helps in what way?

> Just in case anybody misses the point, I agree wholeheartedly that
> web pages should be designed to look decent at just about any window
> size. I just refute this insistence that resolutions statistics are
> completely irrelevant - they're actually pretty helpful in getting a
> clue as to what users are probably seeing.

And if the page adjusts gracefully with virtually any window size, then
knowing resolution or window size helps in what way?

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

"kchayka" <kcha-ns-yka@sihope.com> wrote in message
news:3f04c55f$1@news.sihope.com...
> P@tty Ayers wrote:
>
> >> Well, there's definitely a statistical correspondence between
> >> resolution and window-size, so knowing resolution stats can help a
> >> lot.
>
> Hmm, I use a higher than average resolution and usually window sizes
> smaller than 800x600, so knowing resolution helps in what way?
>
> > Just in case anybody misses the point, I agree wholeheartedly that
> > web pages should be designed to look decent at just about any window
> > size. I just refute this insistence that resolutions statistics are
> > completely irrelevant - they're actually pretty helpful in getting a
> > clue as to what users are probably seeing.
>
> And if the page adjusts gracefully with virtually any window size, then
> knowing resolution or window size helps in what way?
>
> --
> To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
> address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

Yes, because everyone at alt.html designs pages for you.

Fact of a matter is 800x600 is a decent size to make pages to fit for.

Generally, everyone that I've seen browse the Internet uses the full-sized
window at either 800x600 or 1024x768. Unless they are doing stuff all
together at once then they might make the window less than full-size.

Typically, however, if somebody is going to go "browsing" the Internet, then
they have probably only that immediate task in mind, and are not
multi-tasking to a great extent (ie they are not also typing a document,
designing a graphic, writing an email, creating spreadsheet graphs, etc at
the same time).

So, there.