poll- Screen resolution settings

[peanut]

I don't think you understand the concept of 'screen resolution'.

well please feel free to enlighten us

 

[Carwash]

well please feel free to enlighten us

By all means. What I was getting at is that if you have trouble reading text on screen because it is too small, reducing your screen resolution is not the right way to remedy the situation. Increasing the text size is. TFT monitors have a native resolution, and setting them to anything other than this will make your display look like a dog's breakfast, and sacrifices the space available on your desktop in the process. Increasing the text size will keep the text sharp; reducing the screen resolution will... well, reduce its resolution!

(Of course it's not just a question of the pixel dimensions of your display, but also the pixel density: 1920x1200 pixels on a 17" screen will be sharper - but smaller - than the same number of pixels on a 32" screen. As always, these things become more complicated the more you look into them!)

 

[peanut]

Thanks for that explanation however the whole point of this thread is that if web designers utilize more of the screen for their webpages then regardless what screen size or resolution your screen may be set at the text will be proportionally larger without adjusting anything.

This will really benefit those who like myself have sight impairment which I would imagine is a substantial amount of viewers.

It simply is not practicable for everyone effected to have to keep adjusting the text size in various websites and forums simply to be ablke to read the text. #

If you look at the width of the pages on the C+ forums and compare with the width of forum pages on here or CW forums you will see exactly what I am getting at.

By all means. What I was getting at is that if you have trouble reading text on screen because it is too small, reducing your screen resolution is not the right way to remedy the situation. Increasing the text size is. TFT monitors have a native resolution, and setting them to anything other than this will make your display look like a dog's breakfast, and sacrifices the space available on your desktop in the process. Increasing the text size will keep the text sharp; reducing the screen resolution will... well, reduce its resolution!

(Of course it's not just a question of the pixel dimensions of your display, but also the pixel density: 1920x1200 pixels on a 17" screen will be sharper - but smaller - than the same number of pixels on a 32" screen. As always, these things become more complicated the more you look into them!)

 

[Shaun]

The 800 x 600 design restrictions are historically very simple - that was the default Windows desktop resolution for a new install / PC.

That's why designers traditionally used those boundaries.

Things are different now with widescreen PC's and laptops, etc. but a new PC is still somewhat likely to have the default 800 x 600 desktop size.

If you want to use the full screen width on CC, simply select 100% Width from the drop-down at the bottom left of the forum page. Alternatively there are several other width settings so you can chose your own preference.

If you want to zoom in or out of any web page in IE, just use CTRL+ and CTRL-, or depending on how the site HTML / CSS is constructed you can increase just the text size using View > Text Size and selecting one of the options.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Shaun]

Oh, and the other thing you'll do by inflicting wider pages on other people is force them to have to scroll across the width of pages for all the sites that are too wide.

Most commercial organisations are unlikely to want to do that to their customers.

There is a way around it of course - use percentage table widths instead of fixed pixel sizes in the HTML / CSS of the page - these expand and contract based on the end-user's desktop settings so no one is presented with width-based scroll bars.

But then that's down to the designers - and whilst some of them are graphically extremely competent, some of them have no idea when it comes to user interfaces and ease-of-use.

 

[summerdays]

1680x1050 (I followed your instructions to find out - or I could of asked Mr Summerdays)

 

[Carwash]

Thanks for that explanation however the whole point of this thread is that if web designers utilize more of the screen for their webpages then regardless what screen size or resolution your screen may be set at the text will be proportionally larger without adjusting anything.

Nonsense. Styling a site to use a variable-width or wider fixed-width has no effect whatsoever on text size. Do as Shaun suggests and change the width of this forum in your preferences, and you'll see what I mean.

Part of the way the web works is that it's the reader, not the designer, who has ultimate control over how content is displayed. If you don't like how a site looks in your browser, change it! A trivial example would be to change your OS/browser settings to make the text bigger across the board. But if you're that way inclined, all modern browsers will allow you to specify your own styles to override a site's default look.

There's no denying that web designers in general could certainly do a much better job of making their sites accessible to users with, for example, visual impairments. But users themselves are empowered to display sites as they see fit - the tools are there, why not use them?

 

[Amanda P]

Another 1280x1024 (plus a second monitor at 1024x768).

 

[Shaun]

The other issue with wide-format web sites is that people generally find it hard to read wide columns of text. (It's why magazines and newspapers are all laid out in a column basis with typically three columns to an A4 wide page.)

Unless the web designer accounts for this by breaking up the text into columns it can make for a taxing time trying to read a site.

I think the key problem with web pages is that you can't simply construct a page in the same way you can with DTP. You can't simply plonk an item on the layout and size and position it to suit. There's no easy solution to dragging an element point and re-sizing or rotating it. Text flow around an object is another inexact science in HTML / CSS.

Web design, and specifically CSS, has come a long way towards allowing specific placement of elements on a page, but because of browser inconsistencies it is difficult to find a fits-all layout solution without boiling the code down to the common known-to-work-with-all-browsers type restrictions.

Wide web pages are doable - no doubt - but a good deal of thought has to go into the presentation and usability of the site at the design stage.

Sorry, I'll stop harping on now ...

 

[dellzeqq]

hahahahaha.

This thread reminds me of Eric. Eric came to work as a visualiser in an office of unimpeachable design quality, and told us all that the resolution on his screen was simply not up to the job. And the Boss, a man of exemplary trustworthiness, who trusted us all in return, told Eric to order the screen he wanted. Two thousand five hundred smackers later.....the most almighty computer screen fetches up on Eric's desk. And was he chuffed? Nope - he had to have a new computer to run the simulation software. Four thousand four hundred smackers later.....Eric quit soon after.

 

[punkypossum]

Mine's not on the list: 1280x1024

 

[thomas]

I spend at least 12 hours most days at the computer and this stupid minute text is really causing problems for my eyes.

LOL!! I don't think you can only blame the text

 

[peanut]

thanks Shaun that screen width adjustment is exactly what is needed .

It is most unfortunate that it is miniscule and buried away at the bottom of the page . Particularly in view of the fact that the people who require it most are those that use reading glasses and find tiny text extremely difficult to locate and read. Could I suggest that when the site next has a facelift it could be considered to put it in full view at the top of each page

I am not taking a pop at the CC site in particular ..honest I am commenting on all websites in general. CC is unfortunately part of that criticism

I'm not sure i buy the claim about new monitors having default settings at 800x600 I doubt if you could but a monitor today with a native resolution of 800x600 . The 17" CRT monitor I purchased 8 years ago had a 1024x768 I challenge anyone to show me a new monitor available to buy today that has a default 800x600 resolution setting.

So far this poll would suggest less than 8% of active members use 800x600

Just one last question and I promise no more . Why is it that the C+ forum uses a full page format in their forums and CC don't . I'm sure there must be a good reason but I don't profess to know enough to guess why .

The 800 x 600 design restrictions are historically very simple - that was the default Windows desktop resolution for a new install / PC.

That's why designers traditionally used those boundaries.

Things are different now with widescreen PC's and laptops, etc. but a new PC is still somewhat likely to have the default 800 x 600 desktop size.

If you want to use the full screen width on CC, simply select 100% Width from the drop-down at the bottom left of the forum page. Alternatively there are several other width settings so you can chose your own preference.

If you want to zoom in or out of any web page in IE, just use CTRL+ and CTRL-, or depending on how the site HTML / CSS is constructed you can increase just the text size using View > Text Size and selecting one of the options.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Shaun :?:

 

[peanut]

Mine's not on the list: 1280x1024

sorry Punky the poll only allows 10 options and there seems to be lots more than that. thanks for your post anyway

 

[peanut]

There's no denying that web designers in general could certainly do a much better job of making their sites accessible to users with, for example, visual impairments. But users themselves are empowered to display sites as they see fit - the tools are there, why not use them?

by your crazy logic you would probably only fill a pint glass half full and tell everyone to half fill it twice to get a pint.

I'm sorry now that I took you seriously and entered into a discussion with you for i can see you are basically just a flamer who enjoys insulting and winding people up for fun ? and contributes nothing constructive or useful to anything. I shan't make that mistake again with you