RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

Web resolution question

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

10 of 12 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Web resolution question bigskypa@gmail.com 27 Jan 15:57
  Web resolution question Deniz Dogan 27 Jan 16:07
   Web resolution question Akkana Peck 27 Jan 19:01
    Web resolution question Programmer In Training 27 Jan 19:10
  Web resolution question Paul Hartman 27 Jan 23:43
   Web resolution question Programmer In Training 28 Jan 07:14
4B60564A.2050507@ticnet.com 07 Oct 20:20
  Web resolution question bigskypa@gmail.com 27 Jan 16:22
   Web resolution question Programmer In Training 27 Jan 18:53
4B60C70A.50109@gmail.com 07 Oct 20:20
  Web resolution question Paul Hartman 28 Jan 00:33
   Web resolution question Programmer In Training 28 Jan 07:15
bigskypa@gmail.com
2010-01-27 15:57:35 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

Is there a typical or standard monitor resolution a web site should be designed for?

The problem I'm having is that when I make a web page the pictures are in a different position as viewed from various computers.

Any ideas?

Deniz Dogan
2010-01-27 16:07:27 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

2010/1/27 :

Is there a typical or standard monitor resolution a web site should be designed for?

I virtually always make the assumption that the user has at least 1024x768 and make my websites 960 pixels wide. Last time I checked only 4 percent of Internet users today had a resolution lower than 1024x768.

The problem I'm having is that when I make a web page the pictures are in a different position as viewed from various computers.

I'm not sure what you mean (or how this relates to the monitor resolution).

bigskypa@gmail.com
2010-01-27 16:22:00 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On 01/27/2010 10:05 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

bigskypa@gmail.com wrote:

Is there a typical or standard monitor resolution a web site should be designed for?

If I remember correctly, there are (or were) two standard resolutions, one on Apple based machines, and one on Windows based machines.

However, are you sure that it is the resolution which is the cause of the variance you see, and not the size and aspect ratios of the various display devices upon which you are viewing the image?

ns

I wouldn't know how to determine if it were. I figure (wrongly) that if 2 pictures are placed in a specific location when I make a web page then they should appear in the same location and relationship on the web.

Programmer In Training
2010-01-27 18:53:10 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On 1/27/2010 9:22 AM, bigskypa@gmail.com wrote:

I wouldn't know how to determine if it were. I figure (wrongly) that if 2 pictures are placed in a specific location when I make a web page then they should appear in the same location and relationship on the web.

That's how it should work. If that's not the case, check your CSS and HTML for issues between the browsers. Generally the only reason the images should /appear/ to be in different locations is because someone is viewing the site wider or narrower then what you are seeing. If you check out http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us on a variety of machines, you'll see that the images are placed pretty much in fixed positions across all monitors, resolutions and web browsers.

Akkana Peck
2010-01-27 19:01:50 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

2010/1/27 :

Is there a typical or standard monitor resolution a web site should be designed for?

Deniz Dogan writes:

I virtually always make the assumption that the user has at least 1024x768 and make my websites 960 pixels wide. Last time I checked only 4 percent of Internet users today had a resolution lower than 1024x768.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=17 makes it look more like 5-6% (they don't give a "less than", you have add up the numbers for various specific resolutions).

But http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/ seems to be saying that more like 30% of Google visitors have screens narrower than 1024.

The problem I'm having is that when I make a web page the pictures are in a different position as viewed from various computers.

I'm not sure what you mean (or how this relates to the monitor resolution).

"bigskypa" is probably assuming that everybody runs their browser in fullscreen mode, so that it takes up the full monitor resolution. Really, a better measure is how big people's actual browser windows are.

But a web page needs to be able to adjust to different browser sizes. If your layout changes in unpredictable ways because you resized your browser window, you need to fix your HTML layout.

That's one reason why GIMP isn't a good web design tool, though it's great for making individual graphics to use as part of a web page. Perhaps try an HTML forum to figure out where your HTML is going wrong?

...Akkana

Programmer In Training
2010-01-27 19:10:54 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On 1/27/2010 12:01 PM, Akkana Peck wrote:

That's one reason why GIMP isn't a good web design tool, though it's great for making individual graphics to use as part of a web page. Perhaps try an HTML forum to figure out where your HTML is going wrong?

...Akkana

I'd also be willing to help, off-list, of course. (:

Paul Hartman
2010-01-27 23:43:31 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:57 AM, wrote:

Is there a typical or standard monitor resolution a web site should be designed for?

The problem I'm having is that when I make a web page the pictures are in a different position as viewed from various computers.

Any ideas?

There is no standard. Monitor resolution also does not give you any clue about DPI settings, user font size, window size, zoom level, etc. There a million philosophies about web design and the only answer is for you to do what you think is best for your site...

At home I have 2048x1152 monitor on primary computer, 1200x1600 on secondary (yes, portrait orientation), my phone has 800x480 (landscape), my wife's phone has 240x320 (portrait), my grandpa is using 800x600 on a 19inch monitor... you can imagine websites look very different depending on which computer I use.

You can use something like Google Analytics to see what your customers are using (assuming they have Javascript enabled...).

Paul Hartman
2010-01-28 00:33:48 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM, wrote:

The only problem is....I have no idea how to set the width of my web page. I need to know the exact html code I'm supposed to use.

Perhaps use the width or max-width CSS properties in the appropriate place on your page. Which one you use might depend on the structure of your document and the browser used by your audience (I don't think IE6 supports max-width).

Programmer In Training
2010-01-28 07:14:07 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On 1/27/2010 4:43 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:

You can use something like Google Analytics to see what your customers are using (assuming they have Javascript enabled...).

Even if you only have Read Only access to your log files, you can use AWSTATs as well, although I'm not sure if it can determine resolution it gives a good idea of browser and os.

Programmer In Training
2010-01-28 07:15:08 UTC (almost 15 years ago)

Web resolution question

On 1/27/2010 5:33 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM, wrote:

The only problem is....I have no idea how to set the width of my web page. I need to know the exact html code I'm supposed to use.

Perhaps use the width or max-width CSS properties in the appropriate place on your page. Which one you use might depend on the structure of your document and the browser used by your audience (I don't think IE6 supports max-width).

I don't generally set a max-width unless I'm going multi-column (and that can get rather advanced very quickly).