What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
33 Comments
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Even better idea. Stop using fixed width websites. Fixed width websites are NOT a trend, it is poor design these days. Many people have all sorts of resolutions, HDTVs, and widescreens. Fixed width websites mean that people reading your content are not getting the most out of their screens. If I wanted to see something in 800x600 or something I'd switch my resolution to that. I have 1280x768. Letme use my screen to the fullest, thanks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+151024 is the new 800
- prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10People need to learn the difference between resolution and browser size.
My resolution is 2560x1024 (dual monitors).. my browser size is just about 900x750. Who uses a full screen browser? - homeobocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I don't get why people put their sites in straightjackets, anyways. I design my sites so that it can be viewed by someone at 800*600 without h-scroll, but still takes advantage of hueg wide screens.
I didn't get a monitor that displays at 1680*1050 so that I have to look at web sites this | | wide. - jagnum1fan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What do you base your facts on? I was recently looking at a study that showed that over over 74% of internet users to the top 5 sites used a resolution at or greater than 1024x768. I will see if I can find that study, check back later.
- posure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I didn't get a monitor that displays at 1680*1050 so that I have to look at web sites this | | wide."
1920x1200 (what I have) is even worse for reading websites...unfortunately if you dont keep a fixed width to some extent it looks like crap and having 50 words on a line hinders readability. I think the official statistic on that is 25-30 words per line max otherwise it starts becoming unreadable or something around that. Hi-res wide screen monitors require extra columns to be added to really gain much of anything. - yoshu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5prockcore: I use a full size monitor, i make web pages, and I view full screen (which is half a screen for you I'm geussing).
Most people have one monitor.
You are in an elite group of people - congrats.
People that work in the industry know the difference between resolution and browser size. Browser sizes change: duh.
Resolutions are different: wow.
Web sites should be able to do what they are designed to do for everyone. DISPLAY INFORMARTION.
If they can't do that it doesn't matter how many monitors you have. - DangerStevens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Regarding flexible design, you don't even have to have variable-width columns anymore. Checkout a web app called 'Mint' that does excellent column reorganizing.
main site: http://haveamint.com
demo: http://www.designologue.com/mint/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4jagnum: I think it's a case for flexible design or resolution dependent layouts; design for a few resolutions (or all of them) rather than just one.
- Diggity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What an ASSSSSSSS.
I think I'll dig this story just to piss you off iceblink2... I hope it becomes the most popular digg in the universe. - nickster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I could see that, but you still need to design for 800x at my work our ecommerce store (which has over a few hundred thousand hits a month) 50% is 1024x and the rest is 800x or greater than 1024x. I can't stand looking at anything less than 1280x myself though =)
- tavisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I must agree! I HATE it when I go to a site, and the background is nearly the same color as the text! If I wanted to NOT read the site, I would have left my glasses off! If I have to highlight the text to read it, then the site is a design FAILURE!!!!!
"Retard"
No you miss the point, if a site can not be read, then it is a useless waist of space.... Kind of like your post! ;) - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How about mobile phones' browsers? Even lower!
- gmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sites that make full use of a high resoution display (like the 23 and 30 inch cinema displays) have a common denominator... they are hard to read. There's a reason why paperbacks are easier to read than broadsheets. Heck, even broadsheets 'chop up' the widths to make it readable.
- Discosis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah but is there anything wrong with that? It's the guy's blog, after all.
- gamerscalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I always try and keep my main textual content constrained to display on a 800x600. I know of way to many people that use that res, then you also have people that have their browser reduced in size to save space. I may design a layout wider, but I try to keep the main content easy to read and a little narrower than full screen.
I know using the 23" apple displays at work, site that expand to fit can get pretty dang hard to read. Base design off what you think the users of the site will appreciate the most, that's about all it comes down too. - ae92, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just read a study commissioned by a huge online company that said 1 out of 5 of their users has at least 1024x768, but most of them don't use their browser full-screen... interpret that as you will, that's all the info that was included in what I read.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess this is a good place as any to put forward the question: any sites or blogs have information on what fonts are good to use on the web (meaning they look good and are cross-platform)?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3calzone: Just for you, I'll make a dark on light stylesheet. Check back in a few weeks to see it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here you can see related digg story, color trends
http://digg.com/design/Color_Trends_of_2007._Webmasters,_designer_are_you_ready_ - lokendra1989, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0I like it it's too good
http://xboxdesign.com
http://www.zeniltuo.com/
lokendra
(web designer) - calzone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Verdana has been shown to be the Most Readable Font on computer screens. I don't have proof of that, but I've heard it many times, and I must say I agree based on my own experience.
For a less coarse look, Arial as a body font with Verdana as a header font pair very nicely. - tavisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2When I design a site I try to have it look good on 800x600 as well as 1280x1024. On the rare case that my main design only works on 1024x768 and above, I have a little script that will detect the browser size, and send it to a different skin designed for 800x600.
I recently got a laptop that has a screen size of 1440x900 so I have been adjusting my sites for that display size as well. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2swaysteady: Only 1 of the 4 things I mentioned were trends when I started working on my design (beefy footers), and it fit my layout so I went with it. The other 2 (light on dark and silk icons) were not common things, and regardless, I'm not a trend whore at all. My site is fluid, after all, so I think I can say I'm more of an independent thinker when it comes to design. The fact that so many other sites happened to have these trends was unintentional; nobody in the CSS Reboot saw those designs before May 1st. The trend-followers are the ones who look at these sites and change their designs now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5n00bs who design pages with dark text on dark background (i.e. extremely low contrast)
should be keelhauled! - swaysteady, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'm really taking the article with a grain of salt...
1.) The writer is a 20 year old college student
2.) The article consists entirely of "Hey... this is up and coming, definately a new trend... check out how it looks on this website!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2exactly
- calzone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1wtf? that is one ugly site. my eyes hurt and I couldn't read the whole thing.
but really, who needs a women's weekly of web design? be your own trend. - Bara, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Loved reading the article, nice job.
Bara out - Bara, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Not for most sites. Most of their sites appeal to designers and programmers, and most designers and programmers cant stand anything lower than 1024x768. However, the general public still uses 800x600, so alienating them for most sites wouldnt be very smart.
Bara out - Bara, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0@ jagnum1fan... so I guess youre going to elimate the percentage of people who dont have their resolution at 1024x768 correct? The site claims that only 1% view at 800x600, but that is not a representation of the entire internet.
Bara out - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Retard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1stfu on trends if your stupid enough that you cant observe designer trends and need someone to tell you what they are you deserve to digg this. idiots.
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is