a relpy to my critqued site (friendly)

[monkeyhead]

www.monkeyheadgraphics.com

this is just a rant...

I posted a thread before about pro and cons of a liquid layout and i couldn't think of any cons...but reading wes_designs post made me think.

my site looks a bit squished on monitors that have lower res. that makes me think...(for my personal site only) i'm not going to adjust my layout for people with low res monitors. its 2007 people, if you're still running a 800x600 res...you might as well be taking a horse and buggy to work!

sorry, i know that seems selfish and its not good practice but COME ON!!

hope i didn't offend..and if i did, let talk about it over a beer! (you're buying)
Andre

[mikken]

I agree, 800x600 is ready for the museum, unless you're designing for a very broad range of users (which you clearly aren't). But, if you don't design for lo res, you should take hi res in consideration. I feel like I'm repeating myself on this forum, but on a 1920 x 1200 monitor your page feels like 'butter scraped over too much bread'

[Fl4SH'ER]

a relpy to my critqued site (friendly)
that one word made me not to comment...

[monkeyhead]

Fi4SH'er, you did comment!
...and mikken, butter scrapped over too much bread...i don't follow?

[Fl4SH'ER]

to comment = explain or interpret something.
So, I did none of that, I only replied to the thread but
did not comment upon the site itself... ;)

[sdonline]

humm 800x600 is old but depends on what you are building a site for... i did work for a mobility company and most of there clients where all older sooo i had to build a site with lower res in mind..... but i hate having to work around it sooo yeah

[danulf]

...and mikken, butter scrapped over too much bread...i don't follow?

I think he means empty... the content is the butter and the bread is the background/browser. That's how I read it, don't know if that's what he meant

[monkeyhead]

yeah, makes sense.

[biznuge]

Looks fine on my laptop 1280 x 768, but I'll check it out in work tomorrow when I have my 19"er on.

what is the frame rate you've published that site at monkeyhead? Looks kinda slow, but I'm not sure if it's me having too many apps open at the same time, or not?

Liquid layouts are cool, but they do suffer for REALLY large monitor sizes, a la 1920 x 1200, but think of it this way...

As a designer/developer, how the hell could you possibly plan for each and every contingency. Would it be possible to build a site that (using EXACTLY the same content on a page) would look good at extremely low, and extremely high rez...?

How much of your audience is gonna be using a monitor rez such as 1920 x 1200 ...?

Guess it's a question of who your audience is? Other designers/ developers, or the general public?

[drumsnroses]

Well, I sorta agree as far as people at home should upgrade to a decent resolution, but I also work for the state. And, just like many large companies, most state computer screens are set to 800x600. Mine isn't, but most are. And when you've got thousands of state employees (per state) running those resolutions, it does remain an issue. Because, a lot of people still do the majority of their surfing while at work.

[lilymc]

(@biznuge) I thought his site was fast.

This is the one issue that I really don't like about web design.... you never know how your work is going to look on all computers, because there are so many variables (screen resolution, browser, OS, etc, etc). It's annoying when you do something that looks great on one computer and less-than-great on another.

It's why I prefer film/video production, you have so much more control over the end result.

[wes_design]

www.monkeyheadgraphics.com (http://www.monkeyheadgraphics.com)

this is just a rant...

I posted a thread before about pro and cons of a liquid layout and i couldn't think of any cons...but reading wes_designs post made me think.

my site looks a bit squished on monitors that have lower res. that makes me think...(for my personal site only) i'm not going to adjust my layout for people with low res monitors. its 2007 people, if you're still running a 800x600 res...you might as well be taking a horse and buggy to work!

sorry, i know that seems selfish and its not good practice but COME ON!!

hope i didn't offend..and if i did, let talk about it over a beer! (you're buying)
Andre
First off I am offended YOU misspelled my name arrgh
its wes_design geez LOL
and also if you notice no one doesn't take my post to heart...geez
friendly or not my laptop is 1024x768, and also it isn't always about figuring about resolution that goes into web design..
its monitor profiles
its the information architecture
its the stupid UI elements that get added on as toolbars to crowd the browser( at least IE 7 tries to hide them and then you reveal them with a alt tag)
hey thats how the web is, its one facet of the digital divide...:kommie:
Wow I forget to put my disclaimer up about how I am not that great and someone uses me as a reference for a rant:h:
reply to a critique what will you .... think of next LMAO








disclaimer::: wes_design (singular) is just a random person that writes post and is trying to become a better designer...he/she/it types freely of other entities and doesn't understand the necessary trivial quotidian points of other members ... wes_design may communicate or disseminate meaningful advice at time but has the option to type gibberish and leave on his merry way..frankly wes_design's whims are not to copied, followed, appropriated, disseminated without parental consent

[mikken]

Sorry for being so non-understandable. I'm in my sunday mood and forget that there are people outside my head. Danulf got it right. What i meant was that on my big screen the elements will be positioned too far from each other. No, it's not a big issue but it's an easy fix.