Comments
On May 29, 2005 9:50 AM alpha said:Very nice design, but too wide for 800x600 - this is a huge mistake regarding the many users still on this resolution.
On May 29, 2005 10:29 AM clint said:this has been here already if i'm not mistaken, maybe it was the vault...
cant believe that header image is still there, "designer in action" is the last thing that photo reminds me of....
anyway, its content is structured well....
On May 29, 2005 1:27 PM Egor said:Real nice layout, although I agree with Clint on the header.
alpha,
I don't. The site doesn't appear to be targeted at 50-year-olds who haven't upgraded their PC for the last 9 years...
- On May 29, 2005 3:07 PM clint said:
rofl@egor
agreed, I was about to say something similar as the target audience, this site appears- (I dont speak the language) to be geared towards designers, which in proportion to "regular" surfers, would be extremely small that 8x6 res would be a common place anymore.
On May 29, 2005 3:52 PM Smallest Photo said:Pretty nice. I was especially impressed that he got Jason Bateman to pose for it.
On May 29, 2005 7:33 PM Preston said:Beautiful design. The navigation is very functional and the colors do not divert from the page. This is definitely one of the sites on my favorites list.
On May 30, 2005 9:57 AM Ronnie said:I notice that most pages (except the homepage) only print the top navigation on the first page (at least in IE6.0).
Site looks nice, i would not put the guy in the header.
On May 30, 2005 5:03 PM Jeremy Keith said:I'm a designer. My monitor resolution is much wider than 800 by 600 (it's 1440 by 900).
However, I *like* surfing at 800 pixels wide (although usually more than 600 pixels tall). It's my choice. More precisely, it's my preference.
Designer In Action is a nice site (sehr gut gelungen) but it could have so easily accommodated my preference by using a fluid layout.
There are often very good reasons for using fixed widths but I don't see any of those reasons on this site. In fact, this site looks the ideal candidate for a liquid layout.
I'm not looking to start a fixed vs. liquid flame war. But that would be better than arguing about the number 800 vs. the number 1024. The issue here is not about an arbitrary number of pixels. It's about respecting the preferences of your visitors... not all of whom are "50 year olds who haven't upgraded their PC in 9 years", Egor.
- On May 31, 2005 2:53 AM alpha said:
Glad we agree Jeremy. My resolution is 1280x1024, but I have always respected the users who are not as lucky, and still use 800x600 - the global stats show about 29% on this resolution. This for sure doesn´t apply for a design site, but I still believe it should be respected.
On May 31, 2005 4:48 AM neal kernohan said:well, i removed the guy from the header using adBlock, it's made quite a difference. i'm with Jeremy on the resolution, cannot agree more. maybe if i knew more German then the site would make more sense, but you've said it all already, neither the logo, nor the site layout, nor the header image say 'action' to me. overall a decent site but the design just doesn't appeal to me.
On May 31, 2005 5:11 AM Reimer said:I did believe in global stats, but that was a huge mistake. When I started to create my own logs about screen resolution, I saw that less than 1% of my visitors use 800*600.
I think there are not many designers with less than 1024 :)
- On May 31, 2005 8:47 AM Jeremy Keith said:
Talking about stats is completely missing the point. I'm not talking about one number versus another.
Discussing whether 800 is better than 1024 is like discussing whether Coke is better than Pepsi when all you really want is a nice drink of water.
Forget numbers! We had this same discussion a few years back with 640 vs. 800. The final result is the same: if you lock your design into a specific width (be it 640,800,1024 or any other number), you will alienate some of your visitors.
On May 31, 2005 9:11 AM alpha said:Yeah, well, 640 pixels width is so rare that I believe we can safely rule that out. If not, all existing sites with fixed width would not look correctly. It´s true that few designers have low resolutions, but there are still enough to justify respecting them when designing websites.
On May 31, 2005 2:59 PM Shivendra said:I am also a designer, but I believe one should respect those who are in lower range. I believe 800 is wide enuf to accomodate most things. And whoever says scrolling is boring - I find it more easier than going through longer width lines.
- On May 31, 2005 4:32 PM Reimer said:
Jeremy: There are always users with IE4 oder Netscape4 which might visit your site, but you can't design for any user sneaking around. Instead we should start developing for the future and not for the past.
On June 1, 2005 5:39 AM Olly said:Reimer - remember that not everybody browses maximised. Scaling to suit (to an extent - i.e. give it a sensible max-width in ems) is very often a very good idea.
- On June 1, 2005 6:51 AM alpha said:
That´s true, but by using @import url for the stylesheet, old browsers like Netscape 4 can still see and navigate through the entire site without problems.
- On June 1, 2005 7:53 AM Reimer said:
Olly: Yeah, I know that there still many unsolved problems. When I started logging I added the screen resolution and the browser resolution. That is the reason why I stick to a width less than 800 pixel.
On March 7, 2006 12:25 PM Courtney Gidts said:I've managed to save up roughly $22681 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.