 20060328 New Screen Resolution Paradigm
CNN redesigned their homepage. I'm a sucker for grayscale.The important thing to note is that they switched their design width from 800 pixels wide to 1024 pixels, making it the most visited English website (#12 by Alexa) to adopt this larger size format. It's encouraging for me because my development team just decided to make CollegeHumor's newest project 1024-based as well, after our percentage of users with 800x600 screens recently dropped below 10%. 11
Comments:
said... And it is so much quicker than it used to be. I am loving it. 7:42 AM Pete said... Just curious Zack, do you collect information about a users screen resolution comparative to browser width? For example, I generally keep my browser window considerably smaller than what my screen real-estate allows. 11:01 AM said... zach not zack. my bad. 12:24 PM said... zach not zack. my bad 12:24 PM said... I'm being pedantic but microsoft.com detects browser resolution and sizes the content accordingly. I do agree with you though, 800x600 is far to small to display complex navigation. Collegehumor will look great with more "real estate" to play with. 6:24 PM Greg P said... Have you considered using Javascript to size content based on browser width? I've gone through many iterations to fix this problem at keystonepolitics.com, and finally settled on what I call a "variable fixed width" solution. A really tiny piece of Javascript detects your browser window width. If it's <950px, you get the 800x600 version of the site. If it's >950px, you get a wide-screen version that sizes content more appropriately. 10:53 AM Zach said... The new design will be variable width, but optimized for a 1024 screen. It will expand to fit to any screen bigger than 1024, but will look best in 1024. We have considered resolution detection, but as our percentage of users with 800x600 screens is decreasing steadily, we are comfortable with just bumping up the minimum. 11:58 AM Greg P said... We still have 35% of our users on <950px; I didn't want to exclude them. If it was under 10%, I'd make the jump completely. 2:40 PM Greg P said... We still have 35% of our users on <950px; I didn't want to exclude them. If it was under 10%, I'd make the jump completely. 2:40 PM said... I am still opposed to making web pages to the size of 1024x768. Just because my screen's resolution is 1024x768 doesn't mean I size my browser window to take up the whole screen. 2:59 PM said... I am still opposed to making web pages to the size of 1024x768. Just because my screen's resolution is 1024x768 doesn't mean I size my browser window to take up the whole screen. I completely agree! Lately a lot of websites I view have made the switch to 1024, and I find it really annoying. 10:22 PM Post a Comment |
 |
 Hi, I'm Zach. I grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana and graduated from Wake Forest. After college, I moved to Manhattan to get serious about a company I ran with friends. We sold it to Barry Diller's InterActiveCorp in 2006. I just wrapped up with a project I co-founded called Vimeo and left CV to focus on being a twenty-five year old. I have another blog called Copy and Taste, where I post about learning to cook. I live in Brooklyn now.  Del.icio.us My Flickr Me on Flickr Last.fm Linked in MySpace Netflix History Vimeo  Amir Blumenfeld Chris Bodenner Mareen Fischinger Fort Wayne Observed Nick Gray Hype Machine Jake and Amir Jakob Lodwick Oh My Rockness Jonathan Marcus Youngna Park Megan Scheminske Eliot Shepard Shorpy Signal vs. Noise Alex Soth Stereogum Ricky Van Veen Khoi Vinh Eugene Wyatt   Postal Skype SMS (via AIM) |