4 ms·
So what does that mean? What resolution do you design for? 800 x 600? Also, if you design for 'the lowest common denominator', how does your site look when peo
by marcamillion 16y ago
So what does that mean? What resolution do you design for? 800 x 600?
Also, if you design for 'the lowest common denominator', how does your site look when people view it in a 1920 x 1200 monitor?
Do you ever consider spoiling the experience for them?
Not being rude, but seriously curious.
- proexploit 16y agoIt's not that difficult to optimize your page for several different screen sizes. A mobile view, small, med and large without having to create any new components. Also fluid design looks pretty decent even large if you do it right.
- marcamillion 16y agoWell...as a general rule, I would agree with you. However, I am having a particular issue with some dimension issues of some of my elements and images. I would like to have a very fluid design for all resolutions, i.e. % based, but I am running into many problems. In an attempt to just get it fixed and launched, I started this poll to get an idea as to what the popular resolutions are.
- DougBTX 16y agoSee Manifold's comment above, there is much more that you can do than just using %'s. Looking for one true resolution is a straw man.
- manifold 16y agohttp://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ is a useful reference point for creating fluid design. Essentially you can specify different css depending on the width of the browser window, which means you can cater to multiple types of user. For a real example: http://hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/ http://hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/ implemented a 4-column layout at the end of June that looks great on both my 1920 monitor, and my mobile. Try resizing your browser window to see the effect in action.