please empty your brain below
Please form an orderly queue at PC world when buying the latest screen

peter | 10.11.05 - 12:20 a.m. | #

But how do you know "a diminishing number of people are reading them"?

Are you judging that by how many comments are made?

If so, you are on a hiding to nothing!

Annie Mole | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 1:29 a.m. | #

I was advised 800x600 screens would suit my eyes better. Which is irritating when programs and websites are made for 1024x768 screens.

That's the size I use. And if I reach a site that's been deliberately coded to only be seen properly on something larger I leave and don't go back. All you need to do is use percentages in your CSS/html coding and everyone can read the page, regardless of their screen resolution.

(Though it doesn't work with font sizes on Blogger, I've found to my annoyance.)

Joules | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 1:40 a.m. | #

I had to switch to 800x600 from 1024x768 to stop headaches. Much to my surprise, it worked.

Carolyn | 10.11.05 - 2:57 a.m. | #

My survey suggests that just under a quarter of viewers are using an 800x600 resolution (these were the people who could read 208 on the top line of yesterday's post, but not 209).

diamond geezer | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 6:54 a.m. | #

I keep history open, which obviously affects my screen size.

Elsie | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 7:30 a.m. | #

Very interesting DG. I keep my browser at around 800x700 because I find it much quicker to read when I can take the whole line in at once (I was 208/542 on the code).

My screen resolution is much much bigger than that though, and if need by I (reluctantly) maximise the browser.

Russ Degnan | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 7:39 a.m. | #

I'm still not interested. Hell, what am I doing here? Back to Casino Avenue for me.

Knit Nurse | 10.11.05 - 8:47 a.m. | #

Just to add to the confusion you need to take into account font size as well as screen size and the possibility that the user has checked the "Ignore font size selected on web pages" check box in the IE Tools Accessibility option.

Your website design is very unusual and impressive for NEVER failing to view perfectly despite the perverse set of options I have. But it is the context that really makes it.

Pedantic of Purley | 10.11.05 - 9:29 a.m. | #

How long did that list take you of "who can see this line as a single line?"

Dedication above and beyond, methinks.

As for the resolution issue, as I said yesterday I agree that it should be the standard to make a webpage flexible using percentages instead of fixed width. It's not difficult in HTML, and it's easier with CSS.

But still you see so many sites "designed for 1024x768" or whatever. And as other commenters have said, that assumes that the browser has the window open full-screen, which is a bit more of an assumption than I prefer to make, frankly.

And the sheer number of different window sizes, as shown by you, should demonstrate why fixed-width is fuckwitted...

Lyle | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 10:27 a.m. | #

Fascinating as ever dg.

Good stuff.

The Girl | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 10:55 a.m. | #

I think your analyses are fascinating and give a very interesting picture of how people read blogs. Especially passing visitors who are most likely to follow the "screenful principle".

As far as your own posts, I think I enjoy the longest ones best (even if they generate the fewest comments).

These days I read most of my favorite blogs through an aggregator (Thunderbird) but for some reason I still prefer to read yours in the original format.

The Dunce | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:39 a.m. | #

I keep my browser open to (roughly) 1024x768, but my screen resolutions are 1280x1024 (home) and 1400x1050 (work). The second one is with extra-large fonts, which obviously makes an impact as well (that's obviously a laptop resolution)

Chz | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:49 a.m. | #

Several people have mentioned the 800x600 size being recommended for those with eye problems (which may include headaches when working at VDUs).

I just wonder how many of you reading at high resolution sit right next to your screens? I am certain that in the fullness of time the inadvisablity of this will become apparent.

I have a flat screen with a visible screen diagonal of just over 20", which I sit a metre away from, and view at low resolution. Much better for my eyes, and my body.

(Laptop screens, which are of different manufacture, are, I'm advised, less likely to cause difficulties.)

Blue Witch | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:51 a.m. | #

I confess, even though I'm a long-time blog reader, that I too am turned off by too much text on a webpage. I don't mind scrolling down but its really important to have text broken up by paragraphs and photos. Even a new heading will help me stay reading. We can learn from this!

harriet | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 2:36 p.m. | #

Pure speculation, but I'd have thought people with small screens would be more used to scrolling that those with large acreage. And at the end of the day reading blogs is about about the scroll.

Now, making sure you've always got something good at the top of the page that will encourage people to scroll, that's a major headache I grant you...

As has been noted, it's left-right that's the issue. Always code at 750px is my rule.

Pete Ashton | Homepage | 11.11.05 - 1:01 a.m. | #

And not just any old one, dear boy. An Apple Cinema screen.

(second-hand, true, but still)

EWI | Homepage | 18.11.05 - 11:05 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy