HTML framework for target browser resolution!

27 Dec 2004 - 1:07pm
9 years ago
10 replies
1157 reads
Pradyot Rai
2004

I am seeking ideas, pointers, opinions on how to handle the new design
for enhanced target browsers? Here's the case -- the web based
application is investigated for re-design. One of the parameter that
can be enhanced is browser resolution (from 800x600 to 1024x786). That
will give us more room to play, more widgets to accomodate on the
plane.

But I have few concerns and want to validate my assumptions with your inputs --

1 How would you set your width? Is taking the whole 1024 a good idea?
Or will it be better to make it adjustable?

2 Is there any demographic data that suggests any usage patterns? I am
quizzed by the argument that even when majority has migrated to the
higher resolution, they don't open the web application in full screen.
Any reference, argunment for/against?

Any example, pointers, argument which has mentions of this issue will
greatly help.

Thanks,

Prady

Comments

27 Dec 2004 - 1:47pm
Dave Malouf
2005

> 1 How would you set your width? Is taking the whole 1024 a good idea?
> Or will it be better to make it adjustable?

I would try to be dynamic as much as possible

> 2 Is there any demographic data that suggests any usage
> patterns? I am quizzed by the argument that even when
> majority has migrated to the higher resolution, they don't
> open the web application in full screen.
> Any reference, argunment for/against?

The type of application will determine this as much as anything else. What I
mean to say is, whether or not other applications are required by the user
will determine usage as much as "personal habbit".

I really have seen some good stuff out there that have flexible columns and
the like that really make web-apps feel more desktop-application like.

Good luck!

-- dave

27 Dec 2004 - 1:51pm
Listera
2004

Pradyot Rai:

> I am quizzed by the argument that even when majority has migrated to the
> higher resolution, they don't open the web application in full screen. Any
> reference, argunment for/against?

There was a long thread about this on SIGIA-L, perhaps a couple of years
ago, that included discussions on resolution, liquid design, Win/Mac user
preferences on window maximizing, etc.

Ziya
Nullius in Verba

27 Dec 2004 - 4:49pm
Todd Warfel
2003

If I recall correctly, iXL or Razorfish used some slick JavaScript a
couple of years ago for "floating boxes" layout for the Audi redesign.
Anyone know the specific URL - it escapes me.

But basically, they sniffed the resolution of the browser window, and
based on that, they loaded either two columns across, or three across.
Of course, the same could be accomplished with Divs and Floats in good
old standards compliant CSS/XHTML.

On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Pradyot Rai wrote:

> 1 How would you set your width? Is taking the whole 1024 a good idea?
> Or will it be better to make it adjustable?
>
> 2 Is there any demographic data that suggests any usage patterns? I am
> quizzed by the argument that even when majority has migrated to the
> higher resolution, they don't open the web application in full screen.
> Any reference, argunment for/against?

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
Partner, Design and Usability Specialist
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
web: www.messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

27 Dec 2004 - 9:06pm
Marcin Wichary
2004

> If I recall correctly, iXL or Razorfish used some slick JavaScript a
> couple of years ago for "floating boxes" layout for the Audi redesign.
> Anyone know the specific URL - it escapes me.
>
> But basically, they sniffed the resolution of the browser window, and
> based on that, they loaded either two columns across, or three across.
> Of course, the same could be accomplished with Divs and Floats in good
> old standards compliant CSS/XHTML.

This might be a slightly more complicated idea, for two reasons:
- I remember a while ago there were problems with some browsers only
reporting the dimensions of the screen, and not the dimensions of the
browser window (this might have been resolved in the meantime),
- while you can possibly send back the resolution of the browser
window, I believe you'll still be in the dark regarding the available
fonts, the relative type size chosen by the user, the browser zoom
level, custom CSS overriding your stylesheets, etc. This might kill the
whole approach for people using non-standard settings.

Marcin Wichary
e:\> mwichary at usability.pl
w:\> www.aci.com.pl/mwichary >> Attached
w:\> www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/gui >> Graphical User Interface gallery
w:\> www.10yearsofbeingboring.com >> 10 years of Being Boring
w:\> www.usability.pl >> Usability.pl

28 Dec 2004 - 12:53am
Suresh JV
2004

Hi Prady,

Since past 2 years I've been deploying web apps in 1024 or higher screens.
THe base I used to consider for my decision was Google zeitgiest or
something.
Demographic data is available somewhere on google site [not in search. The
graphs on google site show what browser and resolutions access google search
from around the world. And its credible data.] and also here.
http://www.trafficgeneration.com/article_118.shtml

It would be better to make it adjustable. Anything lesser, the user will
have
a horizontal scrollbar. Anything higher, good for them. ;)

Regards,
Suresh.

29 Dec 2004 - 10:42am
Chick Foxgrover
2003

I'm very curious about how the community feels about this. In our
office with many large monitors, noone uses their web browser at 1024.
When i have visited trading floors and other business environments,
I've reaely seen the full monitor used for the web browser.

In a situation where the web browser is the portal to many activities
it seems to make sense, otherwise I find fixed width 800x600 site
greatly more pleasant to use. The flexible sites I've seen were
terrible, but they were badly designed with copy wells expanding to
unreadable width and action links and buttons miles away from relevant
content. I would love to hear of examples of some good flexible design
and contexts where the 1024 browser window is appropriate and welcomed
by the users. Window management may be a big user issue these days for
those not tied to one app and reducing a web page designed for 1024 is
often annoying.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:23:39 +0530, Suresh J V <sjv at inteplan.com> wrote:
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> Hi Prady,
>
> Since past 2 years I've been deploying web apps in 1024 or higher screens.
> THe base I used to consider for my decision was Google zeitgiest or
> something.
> Demographic data is available somewhere on google site [not in search. The
> graphs on google site show what browser and resolutions access google search
> from around the world. And its credible data.] and also here.
> http://www.trafficgeneration.com/article_118.shtml
>
> It would be better to make it adjustable. Anything lesser, the user will
> have
> a horizontal scrollbar. Anything higher, good for them. ;)
>
> Regards,
> Suresh.

-----------------------------------------------------
Chick Foxgrover

29 Dec 2004 - 10:59am
Pradyot Rai
2004

Chick Foxgrover <chick.foxgrover at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very curious about how the community feels about this. In our
> office with many large monitors, noone uses their web browser at 1024.
> When i have visited trading floors and other business environments,
> I've reaely seen the full monitor used for the web browser.

This was precisely the intent of my question too. I have noticed it
myself, most people don't like to maximize their windows on higher
resolution displays. But I have no demographics to thrash the other
argument.

> In a situation where the web browser is the portal to many activities
> it seems to make sense, otherwise I find fixed width 800x600 site
> greatly more pleasant to use.

I am personally with you on this one.

Thanks,
Prady

29 Dec 2004 - 11:42am
Frank Elley
2004

> > The
> > graphs on google site show what browser and resolutions access google search
> > from around the world. And its credible data.] and also here.
> > http://www.trafficgeneration.com/article_118.shtml
> >
> > It would be better to make it adjustable. Anything lesser, the user will
> > have
> > a horizontal scrollbar. Anything higher, good for them. ;)

Sorry if I missed it in an earlier message, but I can't seem to locate the URL on the Google site. Can you provide it?

Another I follow:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/November/res.php

29 Dec 2004 - 5:18pm
John Vaughan - ...
2004

Chick Foxgrover said:
> In a situation where the web browser is the portal to many activities
> it seems to make sense, otherwise I find fixed width 800x600 site
> greatly more pleasant to use.

Increasingly that's the case (browser = portal). And your comments about the cumbersomeness of unrestricted "flexible" resizing are correct.

As a general rule I prefer several smaller "windows" with tightly-designed interfaces for highly transactional/interactive environments (multitasking) - and scrolling frames for long lists of data...

Re the issue of "browser=portal" - esp. for desktop biz environment (financial trading comes immediately to mind): Is anybody interested in talking about that? I'd be especially interested if the multi-instance/tabfolder platform a la Firefox allowed for easy resizing & simultaneous presentation of multiple pages in one window. Data transfer among pages would be cool. Observations? Suggestions?

29 Dec 2004 - 5:45pm
Pradyot Rai
2004

vaughan1 at optonline.net <vaughan1 at optonline.net> wrote:

> Re the issue of "browser=portal" - esp. for desktop biz environment (financial trading comes immediately to mind): Is anybody interested in talking about that? I'd be especially interested if the multi-instance/tabfolder platform a la Firefox allowed for easy resizing & simultaneous presentation of multiple pages in one window. Data transfer among pages would be cool. Observations? Suggestions?

Actually the application in my mind these days is exactly --
financial, multiple tabs, maintaining states, highly transactional,
popups, lots of needs for scrolling portlets, etc. I am interested in
listening what you meant by "multi-instance/tabfolder". I have seen
the Firefox using it, however, I found it not very unintuitive. Please
go ahead, explain your point again.

Thanks,

Prady

Syndicate content Get the feed