Hi all,

I've been reading up on this site about resolutions and screen sizes and everyone's opinion on what's the best way to design a site so it caters to the largest number of viewers.

Frankly, I'm exhausted!

I want to be able to tell the artist at my biggest client what size to make his photoshop files (he does the artwork and I build the site). Up until now, we've been doing everying 768x568, because most of their cients and the noisy AE in the office had their screen resolutions set to 800x600. Of course, now they're complaining the opposite way.

I am in the throes of learning CSS and perfecting more fluid layouts, but until then, can I get some input on the best way to progress? Or, at least, what you would do if you were in my pajama bottoms?

Recently, I took one of this client's designs that was just horrible from a functional point of view and did a basic table layout, and I really like the looks of it. It looks good both on my mac and my PC at 1024x768, but downright freaky at 800x600. (www.sabcable.com)

I just need a happy medium.
TIA, if anyone has any ideas.
Tracey

traypup,

CSS is really the answer to all your questions. Have you checked out these tutorials/examples? Blue Robot and Glish CSS. If not give them a visit and you should be well on your way to fluid designs.

Hope that helps,

Kaiman

Storm King Design
Computer Repair, Networking, and Training - Glenwood Springs, CO

I just recently started at web design again (after 4 months of staying away from it) and I find that people are too stressy when it comes to the size of a site. I like to call the level of work I am doing now as being better than any of my previous (and I must say crap) work. I never fully take into account screen resolutions. I just go by what my eyes and instincts tell me. Would I like to visit a site that is 1024 pixels in width or on the other end of the spectrum, 50 pixels wide? The answer is no. That is why I keep my sites at a minimum of 600 pixels to a maximum of 750. If they get any bigger then how can I fill up the space? I could clutter it with content and images to obey standards, but it wouldn't look nor feel right.

In summary, go with what your instincts tell you. Don't make it overly wide or it will backfire.

hi traypup,

if you want to guarantee that most people can use your side
(disabled persons aswell) you should try not to use fixed sizes.
better use % or em for giving sizes.
anyway you can compose your page that it looks best in one of the mayor scales (1024,800...).
when somebody needs amplification, shure the design will not be as good as before, but more
important is that this person is able to get your content.
(i'm sorry for my lousy english, but i hope you understand my point of view anyway)

mfg

akratellio

This debate is almost as frustrating as Javascript but heres what I think. The choice is yours and it depends on who your site is aimed at. If you want there to be a mega high res version of it (for mac users and such) make a high-res version of the site to which you direct visitors with a Java script which detects the visitors monitor settings. Design a lower res version (aimed at 800x600) and have lower res traffic directed by the same piece of Javascript to that version of the site!

If you dont want to go for the high res version (i.e - its not necessary for your market) stick to one version which is passable on all monitors whic is centred using CSS.

Hope this helps...

Race_Driver

(I am a real formula driver you know!)

thank you so much for those CSS sites, STorm King; I'll check those out. I am trying to learn CSS so this whole thing isn't an issue...you know, in between working, putting out fires, admin, billing, etc. But in the meantime, I need to give the art guy size specs. What do you suggest?

Thanks to everybody for their input...You got me thinking about a few things and here's what I've decided.

1. Gotta learn CSS properly and fast!
2. Will tell the art guy to give me the sites built with a width of between 600 and 750 px, to use as my guide in building.
3. Stop letting the client bully me, since they're not always right. (hahaha)
4. Talk to client about hi-res and low-res versions of their sites. (which could send me over the edge, but at least it will look good)

thanks!
Tracey

hmm... can someone pls. correct me if i'm wrong but a scalable website doesn't have to be in CSS, as long as you make the tables in % rather than fixed width. CSS definitely gives you more design options, but in terms of making the design good for any screen resolution, tables would do just fine...

Originally Posted by howardroark

hmm... can someone pls. correct me if i'm wrong but a scalable website doesn't have to be in CSS, as long as you make the tables in % rather than fixed width. CSS definitely gives you more design options, but in terms of making the design good for any screen resolution, tables would do just fine...

i don't exactly agree with you. the only reason i say it is because HTML means markup language not design and layout ... it expresses the logical character of the page. what you say there is totaly wrong... tables vs. css?

tables are only tags that describe tabular data (columns and rows). maybe you mean divs or layers vs. tables.... because css goes with any posible tags in HTML. including tables.

traypup, back to the problem at hand ... learn that css and fluid layouts and then you'll have a larger view of the picture. that's my advice

I can see the notion of tables being useful though. Tables can be used similarly...cant they?

If you take look at exactly what HTML stands for no ... in real life yes ... a lot of peoiple use them ... it's easier for most people do simply put their designs into TDs. That does not show the logical structure of the page though.

Back to the size problem ... fluid layouts can be very tricky since they take a lot of space on small screens and leave a lot of empty space on large screens ... traypup ... presentation websites that only contain a limited amount of information on a page go better with fixed width ... otherwise you'll get a lot of free space that looks bad ...