|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 71:
| 
Oct 15 20:56 UTC 2003 |
1. 16
2. 1023x768
3. No
4. No
5. Netscape
|
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 71:
|
Oct 15 21:46 UTC 2003 |
1023?
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 71:
|
Oct 16 01:12 UTC 2003 |
I'm still tied with McNalley for the biggest ****ing monitor on Grex, with
the teeniest text on it. My screen is usually covered with terminal windows,
mostly sized to fit 83 lines of 80 columns. At the screen resolutions and
font sizes I use, I can have 2 and 2/3 such windows simultaneously visible.
As a programmer, this makes me very happy.
However, my computer is not otherwise impressive - 600 MHz Athlon running an
way old version of Linux. I'm not eager to upgrade. It's quite sufficient
for my needs.
|
cross
|
|
response 28 of 71:
|
Oct 16 02:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 71:
|
Oct 16 02:24 UTC 2003 |
I'm kind of surprised, actually. I'd've guessed that 21" monitors were
pretty average these days. But then my expectations are probably hugely
biased by the field I'm in -- most of the serious programmers I know
prefer 1600x1200 or higher so they can have editor windows, debuggers,
program output, shells, and as much other stuff as they can fit all on
the screen at the same time..
|
bru
|
|
response 30 of 71:
|
Oct 16 02:29 UTC 2003 |
17"
1024 x 768
NO to AOL
NO Broadband
confidential
|
cross
|
|
response 31 of 71:
|
Oct 16 02:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
Oct 16 03:13 UTC 2003 |
(I don't think of my ISDN line as 'broadband', even when it brings up the
second B channel.)
Yeah, I litter my screen with terminal windows, too.
|
eprom
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
Oct 16 04:27 UTC 2003 |
Thanks for the feedback folks....
I heard as a rule of thumb webpages are "suppose" to be designed
for 800x600 and that graphics shouldn't be bigger than 640x480.
You basically confirmed my suspicion that 800x600 was no longer the
standard. I'm actually quite suprised by the numbers. I would have
guessed it would have broken down something like this:
640x480 >%01
800x600 %40
1024x768 %55
everything inbetween %13
1200x1600 and greater %2
I'm also suprised at the number of people *not* using MS internet
explorer; I thought it would be well over %50 if not closer to +%70
I might go back and tally the numbers in a few days, just for kicks. I
realize this doesn't represent a true demographic of the U.S. pop., and
probably not even of grex as a whole...but its a good place to start.
|
ea
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
Oct 16 04:34 UTC 2003 |
1. 17"
2. 1024x768
3. No
4. Yes
5. Opera (WinXP)
|
jebjeb
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
Oct 16 05:02 UTC 2003 |
1. 19'
2. dont know
3.no
4.yes
5. ie(please dont spam or killl me i am just getting into linux
|
cross
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
Oct 16 05:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
michaela
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
Oct 16 09:03 UTC 2003 |
1) 17"
2) 1024x768
3) Hell no
4) Yes (Charter cable)
5) Mozilla (Win2K)
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
Oct 16 11:29 UTC 2003 |
In reporting monitor sizes, I think it makes a difference whether
you're talking about CRT or LCD. My current 19" LCD monitor has
about the same screen area as the 21" CRT that it replaced.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 71:
|
Oct 16 13:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 71:
|
Oct 16 14:01 UTC 2003 |
I think I would still design for 800x600. A page intended for an
800x600 screen is readable on a bigger one, but a page designed for a
1024x768 screen can be a real pain on an 800x600 one.
Here's a somewhat surprising statistic: The most common operating
system for people visiting the website at work is Windows 98. Windows
2000 and XP are approaching it but have yet to overtake it. ME is *way*
less common.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 71:
|
Oct 16 14:02 UTC 2003 |
(Oh, and remember that some people, like me, don't maximize their
browser window when browsing.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 42 of 71:
|
Oct 16 14:44 UTC 2003 |
I think taking a survey on grex, and using that as a standard for the rest
of teh world is highly misleading. Grex, by and far, is largely a geek
community. Sure there are non-geeks, but most of the people on agora work with
computers and are used to multi-tasking on their computers. Hence the higher
resolution to accomodate all the different windows.
The way computers has spread these days, you find more and more people using
them, and the majority aren't geeks. You have people who barely know how to
get on teh internet, forget knowing how to change the resolution f their
screens. These numbers are getting larger by the day. A lot of people I know
still use 800x600.
As for browsers, again, grex which has more Unix lovers than MS lovers is not
the right place to have a survey on. When I go through the usage statistics
of my site, IE seems to be the browser of choice. Mozilla has a tiny
percentage of users, comparatively. Again, I'm not saying that teh statistics
for my site are generic enough to be used. It just shows that depending on
your sample of people, the survey is going to give you different results.
As for what resolution to design for, I guess, in part that depends on your
site. If the kind of audience you expect is widely people of computer
backgrounds, a higher resolution may be appropriate. If it's varied, 800x600
may be appropriate.
Most of my site is designed in tables, and I tend to use relative widths so
that the whol width of the page is displayed no matter what resolution the
user is using or whether he has his browser in a less than maximised state.
|
other
|
|
response 43 of 71:
|
Oct 16 14:58 UTC 2003 |
I would think that 800x600 would be an appropriate scale for which to
design for the following reasons [all pure speculation on my part]:
At this stage of technology, people who primarily use 800x600 are
not likely to be advanced users, and will less likely be multitasking, so
they'll be more interested in having a browser window take up the whole
screen, or will be less inconvenienced by it if it does.
More advanced users will likely have larger resolutions, and will
not want a full-screen browsing experience, but will want enough screen
real estate dedicated to the browser to be able to appreciate the design
and content experience.
Very few folks browsing the internet on full-size computers at this
point will have screens with smaller than 800x600, and those with smaller
portable devices will expect to have a different sort of experience
anyway.
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 71:
|
Oct 16 20:01 UTC 2003 |
1) What size is your monitor?
17" at home, 19" at work
2) What resolution is your monitor set to?
1024x768
3) do you use AOL dial-up for your ISP?
No
4) do you have broadband?
Yes (DSL)
5) what is your prefered browser?
IE 6.0
|
jlamb
|
|
response 45 of 71:
|
Oct 16 23:41 UTC 2003 |
1) 17.2 inch LCD
2)1280 x 1024
3) No.
4) no.
5) IE 6 on windoze, and Konqueror
|
eprom
|
|
response 46 of 71:
|
Oct 17 03:41 UTC 2003 |
oh...another thing.
I have an ATI card and the resolution settings go from:
res. ratio
----------------------
1024x768 4:3
1152x864 4:3
1280x1024 5:4 (wtf?)
1600x1200 4:3
why isn't the resolution 1280x960 (4:3)? I think a perfect
in between size would be 1400x1050.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 71:
|
Oct 17 11:59 UTC 2003 |
I've also wondered where 1280x1024 came from. 1280x960 would be
more consistent.
Support for various resolutions is a driver issue, I think. When
I upgraded the video driver for my previous windows box, suddenly
1280x960 was supported in addition to the other resolutions.
With XFree86 under Linux, you can set the resolution to virtually
anything you want. I've used 1280x960 and also 1400x1050. The
main reason that I use 1280x1024 now is that it's the native
resolution of my LCD monitor.
|
keesan
|
|
response 48 of 71:
|
Oct 20 18:24 UTC 2003 |
The computer I am using at Jim's house has two monitors plugged into it.
99%% of the time I use the 13" TTL amber, 80 columns.
To see VGA fonts or graphics I have a color VGA that can go to 1280
resolution but the resolution depends on the software. Arachne goes only to
1024. I have a variety of image viewers and printers.
ISP = USOL in Flint. A very procrastinating friend for whom I set up USOL
and Opera persists in using AOL because he claims he is too busy to change,
despite having to pay them $25/month for inferior service.
Dial-in
Preferred browser = Lynx. I also have Links, Arachne, Newdeal, Opera (for
Linux, 6.03) and on Jim's computer Netscape 4.7. I use Lynx at grex, and Lynx
2.8.5 for DOS, and 2.8.4 for Linux. Opera only if I need javascript.
We now own 2 17" monitors found at the curb (Jim fixed them) but they are big
and heavy and take up desk space. We have a 15" that goes to 1600 res. I
have one of my office computers set up with the 17" so I can view faxes that
people turn into pdf or gif files when the print is tiny. Quicker than
printing them out.
|
murph
|
|
response 49 of 71:
|
Oct 23 20:16 UTC 2003 |
1. 14.1" laptop screen
2. 1024x768
3. No
4. Yes -- somebody in the building (3 apts on 3rd floor, 5 offices on second)
has a wireless router with factory (unsecured) settings. Traceroute gives
a verizon ip as the first step to anything, but, when we moved here, verizon
told me we couldn't get dsl.
5. Safari
As far as webpage design goes, if you're doing it right the viewer's
resolution shouldn't make much of a difference--in theory, everything should
fluidly resize, so the size of your graphics would be the only issue. In
practice, I've long since given up on deisgning for everyone. Since the only
thing I'm designing these days is my blog, I make it look decent in Safari
and let the rest of the world cope with their browsers' ideosyncracies.
|
