The Web Page Width DilemmaWritten by Mario Sanchez
With so many different resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc.), browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, etc.), and platforms (Windows, Mac, etc.) in use, it is very difficult to design a page that looks good (or at least looks same) in all configurations.To design a page that looks good with most configurations, let's start by defining our main objective: we must never force a user to scroll horizontally. In other words, our page must always fit within available screen width. This would suggest that we have to design our page for lowest common denominator: 640x480. However, less than 1% of Internet users utilize this archaic resolution (which was common when 14" screens were best you could get). Therefore, we can rationally make decision to ignore 640x480 resolution (since forcing 99% or users to read a low resolution page to accommodate 1% of our user base doesn't sound too efficient), and design our page for resolutions of 800x600 and higher. Since 800x600 remains most popular resolution today (May, 2003), we must optimize our page design for this resolution, meaning that our page should look best at 800x600. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that we must necessarily design an 800 pixel wide page, only that it must look best in screens with 800x600 resolutions (read on and you'll see what I mean...). At this point, we're ready for our next decision: should we design a fixed-width page, or should we specify width of our page in percentage terms? There are pros and cons for both. The main advantage of a fixed-width page is that layout will always remain as you intended, even when viewed at higher resolutions. The main disadvantage is that users with larger screens, set at higher resolutions, will not be able to fully utilize them, and will instead see large, unused blocks of space around your page (certainly, a disappointment to those users who spent a lot of money for a large computer screen).
| | Web Design Mistakes - GraphicsWritten by Breal Web Design
This article may be published electronically or in print, free of charge, without alteration to any content and resource box at end of article is included in it's entirety without alteration. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.Web Design Mistakes - Graphics *********************************************************** Good design involves a good balance of text and graphic design. How many graphics you choose to use on your web page, if any, depends on what your site is about. A sales letter page about a virtual downloadable product doesn't need a lot of graphics. For example, an e-book page may contain graphics of a book cover (for example of a book cover graphic, see http://www.brealweb.com/writing/freebook.asp), bullets, a header and navigational links which are all small, fast loading graphics files. However, an art gallery will have a lot of graphics, and a visitor to that site will be expecting a lot of images. The problem with graphics is that they really slow down page loading time. For users of 28.8 KB modems (Yes, they are still in use) loading time of a page is of primary importance. For those with high speed connections, loading time is unimportant, but bandwidth may be an issue (send a blank e-mail to mailto:bandwidth@brealweb.com for an article explaining bandwidth). So rule of thumb is, ---Only Use Optimised Graphics Infrequently--- There are a few common mistakes made when using graphics that can be easily avoided and will make your site visitor's experience much more enjoyable. 1. Large and Uncompressed Graphics. Large graphics are needed on web, but they should be kept in their place. (E.g. high resolution maps, wallpaper images, etc). Where a site has these images, there should be a lower resolution thumbnail linking to larger image. Then only people who want large image will have to wait for it to download. Even smaller graphics can still have large file sizes if they're not compressed properly. Consider following:
|
