I'm designing a website and I'm wondering about screen resolutions. Is 1024x768 the industry standard or shoud I go for an 800x600 hoping thats the lowest anyone goes anymore? Or should I design two identicle websites, one for 1024 and one for 800?
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
Until someone finally tells the general public that they need to upgrade their damn monitors, design for 800x600...which is to say, 760x420 viewable. Just be glad we're out of 640x480 for the most part.
However, this is a misleading answer. Just because you're designing for 8x6 does not mean that your design should ONLY fill that space. If your design is pretty and liquid, then your site will span resolutions above that as well. Nothing pulls more hate from my groin than going to a site while I'm at 16x12 and having all the text mashed onto the left half of the screen.
This isn't painting. Pretend you have more space.
[This message has been edited by twItch^ (edited 09-05-2003).]
Mm-hmm. Now see, if you were doing liquid design, this wouldn't be a problem
Most users these days have at least 1024x768, but you should still make sure the site looks reasonably good at 800x600. That is, make sure all of the most important content is "above the fold."
You guys were talking about a "liquid" design. What do you mean by that? Do you use some SHTML or JS to get the images to move around a bit (like in Doc Ozone's Site)?
[EDIT: :: shivers:: 640x480... Evil...]
[EDIT: Sorry... Where should this thread be? HTML?]
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
[This message has been edited by Ruku (edited 09-05-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Ruku (edited 09-05-2003).]
Put your cursor over the left or right edge of your browser window. Now, left-click and drag your browser window to make it bigger. See how the Asylum flows to fill your window. That is liquid design.
Ah! Makes so much sense now... Gotcha. With tables right?
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
"tables or css" is a very bad way to put it. even if you use tables, you should still be suing CSS to control it.
To put it more acurately, tables or....no tables. if possible, no tables.
Liquid design can be achieved with any elements, it doesn't require tables or divs....
In my opinion, liquid design is easier with CSS, simply because CSS has so many options and allows so much more control over the page. With tables and plain ol' HTML, it's either pixels or percentages, but CSS gives you things like ems and other cool stuff to play with.
And by the way, all web pages were originally intended to be liquid, it's just that when the WWW took off, many print designers began exploring the new medium, but with an old mindset that they should be allowed total control over their documents. And they're also the ones tha came up with the idea of using tables for layout.
They used tables because back then, there was no other choice that allowed them to visually "lay out" a page. Now there is: CSS.
[This message has been edited by ozphactor (edited 09-05-2003).]
DL: In a picky mood today? What I said is correct. What you said is correct. Neither of us really gave enough info to know what's truly involved in making a liquid layout.
No, but I get the gist. Unfortunately I have broken the laws of web designing and I'm going to make a completely graphic site. (GASP!) So Liquid Design doesn't really matter in this case...
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
quote:Of course, that wouldn't validate and he couldn't put one of those spiffy little W3 buttons on his page.
I'm gonna be just a little anal too, and say...
Not quite. "Valid" and "semantically correct" are two different things (I had to be reminded by Emps ). A table layout can still validate under XHTML Strict, because the <table> tag is perfectly valid. However, the validator can not distinguish if the <table> is being used for layout or for tabular data.
In other words, the validator can't check whether you're using the tags correctly, only that you're not using any deprecated junk, and that you don't have any syntax errors.
I'll agree with you on that one oz. However, I was talking about a site like the Asylum that is liquid and works perfectly in most browsers but that won't validate.
o.o But moderator... cussing out another member over a matter that doesn't really matter anymore?
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
I feel a little 'cussing' was warranted after being called an 'anal retentive prick' simply because I pointed out a huge error in what someone said....
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>
---
"The Mystery of Life"
Vol. 841, Ch. 26
"All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu. This is the truth! This is my beleif! ...at least for now." - Chrono Trigger
><>