Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars chew 25 pixels each). That's asking a lot, I suppose... - Dan
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote:
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars chew 25 pixels each).
For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore). -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Linux, WinNT, MS-DOS - also known as the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
2009/2/13 Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote:
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars chew 25 pixels each).
For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore).
I think it's still valuable as an accessibility thing. Remember, not everyone has excellent eyesight!
( sorry for re-post - first response go only to Dan Kegel ) on short - that means a lot of scroll OR to split too big contents like : Title Content asdfsdaf sadfsadf sadfsadfs sad 4545 fsdf sadf sdfsdfsadf part 1 link, part 2 link ( page bottom ) it could be done with jQuery also for 800x600 the left menu can be fluid / retractable 2009/2/13 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>:
2009/2/13 Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote:
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars chew 25 pixels each).
For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore).
I think it's still valuable as an accessibility thing. Remember, not everyone has excellent eyesight!
-- Nemes Ioan Sorin
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>:
it could be done with jQuery
I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more accessible.
I agree, with the no javascript requirement. I can't tell you how frustrating it is if I am using links from the CLI and I hope a site just to have it say that because javascript is required I can't access even the text. Now I really can't see anyone trying to do anything with wine from the CLI, and not having a xserver open to use a better browser though.
Years ago I was a happy CLI user - but for nornal browsers Javascript is OK - for non JS browsers - a noscript version of the website can be generated - and long page content can be arranged in part1, part2, etc - accessible via bottom links 2009/2/13 Seth Shelnutt <shelnutt2(a)gmail.com>:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>:
it could be done with jQuery
I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more accessible.
I agree, with the no javascript requirement. I can't tell you how frustrating it is if I am using links from the CLI and I hope a site just to have it say that because javascript is required I can't access even the text. Now I really can't see anyone trying to do anything with wine from the CLI, and not having a xserver open to use a better browser though.
-- Nemes Ioan Sorin
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/2/13 SorinN <nemes.sorin(a)gmail.com>:
it could be done with jQuery
I hear this a lot. Is it really such a good idea? I'd argue a site not requiring Javascript to function is much cleaner, friendlier and more accessible.
While that is true, you can use javascript to enhance a site's usability. In this case, the site would still work without javascript, but paging would be done using jquery. Remco
2009/2/13 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>:
2009/2/13 Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote:
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars chew 25 pixels each).
For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore).
I think it's still valuable as an accessibility thing. Remember, not everyone has excellent eyesight!
Turn the DPI up, not the resolution down. -- Rob Shearman
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote:
What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it might make sense to review our web site and make sure its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen
For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore).
It's true, Amazon doesn't list 7" laptops anymore. Whew! http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2009/January/res.php shows that most users have a 1024x768 screen size, so let's first make sure we handle that well. That's easy to test; just start Firefox with firefox -width 1000 -height 700 and make sure that: the real content starts no more than halfway down the page, the left and right borders don't squeeze the content too much, and that the user can clearly grasp what the page is about without scrolling. (http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of explains when it's ok to rely on the user scrolling, and when it's not.) Our download page, sadly, still fails that test, even with the recent improvement. But most of our pages don't fare too badly. Once we get the few pages that fail that test fixed up, we could consider the fact that lots of people are starting to use iPhones and the like to browse the web, and those have an even smaller screen: 480x320! The lovely Wine logo (200x313) on our new site takes up most of the screen on one of those. I'm not sure what to do about that. Perhaps we could detect that using Javascript and switch to a background with smaller logo. Let's worry about that later, though. - Dan
participants (7)
-
Ben Klein -
Dan Kegel -
Francois Gouget -
Remco -
Rob Shearman -
Seth Shelnutt -
SorinN