To those of you who commented about designing for 800x600 - you all have valid points. They're rules that I have been using for years and after designing so many templates that are basically restricted, your layout ideas seem repetative and bland... not only to yourself but visitors. People can see when there's been effort to make a site look even half-decent - and that's usually appreciated.
For me though ... I'm tired of even looking for layout inspiration on the 'net. It's all either basic and boring or graphical and arty. Although it may be fun to visit a site with a graphical and arty design... they're not practical in my opinion.
Sorry if I've bored you all to sleep but what I'm trying to say is I want to make something original. It may still yet be a 800x600 compliant website but it will require a lot of thinking work if I'm looking to make it look original.
Do you guys normally view webpages full screen or in a reduced size window?
Full screen - the web just looks better that way, no matter what resolution you run at.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... erm wheres the other 2?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wouldn't adding in 1280x1024 require the current answers to be reset?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marik Steele+Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik Steele @ Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alright, before anyone gets more than mildly annoyed at the lack of nonstandard resolutions: the forums let me put a max of 10 possible answers. Deal with it, please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1280 x 1024 is the native resolution of TFT monitors, you can't ignore this one. TFT monitors are ubershite when not running under native resolution.
1280 x 1024 here, but it doesn't fit your poll, deal with it please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wake+Jun 14 2005, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wake @ Jun 14 2005, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marik Steele+Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik Steele @ Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alright, before anyone gets more than mildly annoyed at the lack of nonstandard resolutions: the forums let me put a max of 10 possible answers. Deal with it, please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1280 x 1024 is the native resolution of TFT monitors, you can't ignore this one. TFT monitors are ubershite when not running under native resolution.
1280 x 1024 here, but it doesn't fit your poll, deal with it please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, sorry for forgetting flatpanel screens. Unfortunately, as DragonMech guessed, adding an answer now would reset the counts for all of them.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
And 1280x1024 is not the native resolution for TFT monitors. Just the 'low cost' (read: cheap-****) ones you buy at CompUSA and Best Buy. Most of the good ones (aka: do not have to run in native to look good) have a native of 1600x1200.
Voted 1280x960 despite running under 1280x1024. But then again, the y axis when coming to websites is pretty much irrelevant really, since that's what we have scrollbars for.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 14 2005, 08:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 14 2005, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And 1280x1024 is not the native resolution for TFT monitors. Just the 'low cost' (read: cheap-****) ones you buy at CompUSA and Best Buy. Most of the good ones (aka: do not have to run in native to look good) have a native of 1600x1200. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1280 x 1024 IS the native resolution of TFT monitors up to 19"
1024 x 768 is for 15"
1600 x 1200 is for 20" to 23"
1920 x 1200 for 23"
And there is no miracle, if not running under native resolution, the image has to be adapted (= degraded)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Care to post a source, Wake? Because I use a 17" at work with a native res of 1600x1200. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you made the initial assertion. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And 1280x1024 is not the native resolution for TFT monitors. Just the 'low cost' (read: cheap-****) ones you buy at CompUSA and Best Buy. Most of the good ones (aka: do not have to run in native to look good) have a native of 1600x1200.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems like everyone in this thread except for you so far with a TFT has indicated their native resolution as 1280x1024. I think the burden of proof is on you now.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Care to post a source, Wake? Because I use a 17" at work with a native res of 1600x1200. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Tho Moultano is right that you made the weird assertions, what you ask is not hard to find.
Here are some pages with specifications :
NEC <a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_LCD_Monitors/b/175/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_LCD_Monitors/b/175/c/1876</a>
LG <a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/LG_LCD_Monitors/b/149/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/LG_LCD_Monitors/b/149/c/1876</a>
So 1280 x 1024 is probably the main resolution from TFT monitors used by gamers.
It means that you have a Thin Film Transistors that is a matrice of 1280 x 1024 so if you want to use it in 1024 x 768, the image has to be interpolated and it sux.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marik Steele+Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marik Steele @ Jun 13 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alright, before anyone gets more than mildly annoyed at the lack of nonstandard resolutions: the forums let me put a max of 10 possible answers. Deal with it, please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The options should have read:
Comments
To those of you who commented about designing for 800x600 - you all have valid points. They're rules that I have been using for years and after designing so many templates that are basically restricted, your layout ideas seem repetative and bland... not only to yourself but visitors. People can see when there's been effort to make a site look even half-decent - and that's usually appreciated.
For me though ... I'm tired of even looking for layout inspiration on the 'net. It's all either basic and boring or graphical and arty. Although it may be fun to visit a site with a graphical and arty design... they're not practical in my opinion.
Sorry if I've bored you all to sleep but what I'm trying to say is I want to make something original. It may still yet be a 800x600 compliant website but it will require a lot of thinking work if I'm looking to make it look original.
Do you guys normally view webpages full screen or in a reduced size window?
Thanks again..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... erm wheres the other 2?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wouldn't adding in 1280x1024 require the current answers to be reset?
1280x1024 @ College.
1280 x 1024 is the native resolution of TFT monitors, you can't ignore this one.
TFT monitors are ubershite when not running under native resolution.
1280 x 1024 here, but it doesn't fit your poll, deal with it please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
1280 x 1024 is the native resolution of TFT monitors, you can't ignore this one.
TFT monitors are ubershite when not running under native resolution.
1280 x 1024 here, but it doesn't fit your poll, deal with it please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, sorry for forgetting flatpanel screens. Unfortunately, as DragonMech guessed, adding an answer now would reset the counts for all of them.
1280 x 1024 IS the native resolution of TFT monitors up to 19"
1024 x 768 is for 15"
1600 x 1200 is for 20" to 23"
1920 x 1200 for 23"
And there is no miracle, if not running under native resolution, the image has to be adapted (= degraded)
And no, a 8ms / 19" is not cheap.
OMGADS drama alert!
you made the initial assertion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And 1280x1024 is not the native resolution for TFT monitors. Just the 'low cost' (read: cheap-****) ones you buy at CompUSA and Best Buy. Most of the good ones (aka: do not have to run in native to look good) have a native of 1600x1200.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems like everyone in this thread except for you so far with a TFT has indicated their native resolution as 1280x1024. I think the burden of proof is on you now.
Tho Moultano is right that you made the weird assertions, what you ask is not hard to find.
Here are some pages with specifications :
NEC
<a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_LCD_Monitors/b/175/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_LCD_Monitors/b/175/c/1876</a>
LG
<a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/LG_LCD_Monitors/b/149/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/LG_LCD_Monitors/b/149/c/1876</a>
Samsung
<a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/Samsung_LCD_Monitors/b/231/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/Samsung_LCD_...rs/b/231/c/1876</a>
BenQ
<a href='http://www.superwarehouse.com/BenQ_LCD_Monitors/b/312/c/1876' target='_blank'>http://www.superwarehouse.com/BenQ_LCD_Monitors/b/312/c/1876</a>
I'll let you go thru the other brands.
So 1280 x 1024 is probably the main resolution from TFT monitors used by gamers.
It means that you have a Thin Film Transistors that is a matrice of 1280 x 1024 so if you want to use it in 1024 x 768, the image has to be interpolated and it sux.
The options should have read:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> 640x480 or lower
800x600
1024x768
1280x960
1280x1024
1360x1024
1600x1200
higher than 1600x1200<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
These are more common answers.
However, while I'm surfing the web and crap, my screen res is at 1280 x 1024. (my video card is craptacular... don't ask)