Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Screen resolution for web?

Author

Screen resolution for web?

Dan

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
keep in mind?
I'm assuming the factory setting on my monitor is the common one for those
with new monitors.
1024x768?
Thanks
Dan

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

"Dan" <dn_ken@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ggarbF1k5ofnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
> keep in mind?

The browsers don't care what the resolution is, but I think the figure you
are looking for is 96.

Dan

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

I probably phrased that incorrectly.
I was thinking of screen viewing size, would 800x600 be more common than say
1024 x768?
If your craeting images for a web page would there be a more appropriate
size than another for keeping in mind?

"2" <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:12a5v56kma3ls85@news.supernews.com...
> "Dan" <dn_ken@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ggarbF1k5ofnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> The browsers don't care what the resolution is, but I think the figure you
> are looking for is 96.
>
>
>

prekoplotić

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

Dan wrote:
> I probably phrased that incorrectly.
> I was thinking of screen viewing size, would 800x600 be more common than say
> 1024 x768?
> If your craeting images for a web page would there be a more appropriate
> size than another for keeping in mind?

If site is not 'strachebel', so if you need fixed site I would recommend
800 x 600.

--
http://www.inoxfire.com

Nicholas Sherlock

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

Dan wrote:
> When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
> keep in mind?
> I'm assuming the factory setting on my monitor is the common one for those
> with new monitors.
> 1024x768?

Almost all new computers will use 1024x768 or better. I usually design
my websites so that they look great in 1024x768 and upwards, and still
work fine in 800x600 (I don't care what happens at 640x480).

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

--
http://www.sherlocksoftware.org

Derek Fountain

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

Dan wrote:
> When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
> keep in mind?
> I'm assuming the factory setting on my monitor is the common one for those
> with new monitors.
> 1024x768?
> Thanks
> Dan
>
>

Three quarters of people now use 1024x768 or better:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

But that still leaves many millions who use screens smaller than that.
Whether you design for 800x600 probably depends on how much you worry
about those 25% of users who won't get the best experience from your
website.

Flo Nelson

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

"Nicholas Sherlock" <N.sherlock@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:e7vm70$916$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Dan wrote:
>
> Almost all new computers will use 1024x768 or better. I usually design my
> websites so that they look great in 1024x768 and upwards, and still work
> fine in 800x600 (I don't care what happens at 640x480).
>

I do the same. Keep in mind, though, that you need to allow for space taken
up by the browser, so plan on a viewing area of about 760 for a screen
resolution of 800 x 600.

Flo

Kulvinder Singh Matharu

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:32:19 -0500, "Dan" <dn_ken@hotmail.com> wrote:

>When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
>keep in mind?
>I'm assuming the factory setting on my monitor is the common one for those
>with new monitors.
>1024x768?

As well as Derek Fountain's advice on screen size usage, please also
think about a "liquid" or "elastic" design rather than just a
"fixed-width" design. Each have their advantages and disadvantages.

My own website is "liquid" to a degree...but in modern browsers such
as IE7 (IE6 doesn't count!), FireFox 1.5 and Opera 9 the width of my
site is limited to a size that is related to the browsers text-size
(not screen size) so that line length is limited to a certain number
of characters for eligibility. Otherwise you could have an entire
paragraph on one line for very wide screens (or multi-monitor setups
where the browser window goes across two or more monitors!).

See Liquid Designs:
http://www.mardiros.net/liquid-design.html
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/liquid-design

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Stephen

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:32:19 -0500, Dan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>When formatting images for the web is there a common screen resolution to
>keep in mind?
>I'm assuming the factory setting on my monitor is the common one for those
>with new monitors.
>1024x768?

Well, that's a loaded question.

If one has the above resolution, never assume that they have a browser
viewport at that size. Most users don't use a fully expanded browser.

So, 800 x 600 px is a little large for an image in my view, broadband
not withstanding.

I generally use 550px x porportionate height when doing an image
gallery -- That is for each individual image.

In terms of other sizes, it depends where you're putting them on the
web page. If you're interleaving pictures throughout the copy, then I would
make them smaller. I would discuss this with the client, giving them the
pros/cons of larger/smaller sizes.

Thumbnails sizes that I use, are 100px x porportionate height. At that
size the thumbs are generally large enough to see required detail, yet
small in file size.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

KatWoman

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

"Stephen" <Stephen.D.Allen@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:slrnea8948.rvo.Stephen.D.Allen@sweetpig.dyndns.org...
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:32:19 -0500, Dan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> wrote:
>
> Well, that's a loaded question.
>
> If one has the above resolution, never assume that they have a browser
> viewport at that size. Most users don't use a fully expanded browser.
>
> So, 800 x 600 px is a little large for an image in my view, broadband
> not withstanding.
>
> I generally use 550px x porportionate height when doing an image
> gallery -- That is for each individual image.
>
> In terms of other sizes, it depends where you're putting them on the
> web page. If you're interleaving pictures throughout the copy, then I
> would
> make them smaller. I would discuss this with the client, giving them the
> pros/cons of larger/smaller sizes.
>
> Thumbnails sizes that I use, are 100px x porportionate height. At that
> size the thumbs are generally large enough to see required detail, yet
> small in file size.
>

the last two sites I made for clients both asked for sites that they did not
have to use any horiz scrolling, one uses a laptop the other an old desktop.
So I used tables to keep the margins from moving on window resize.Her
monitor is old and curved so she thought I had distorted the photos!

When designing I assume the worst 800x600, most users never change the
defaults!!
(table is 700 px wide for page frame + navigation bar at left maybe 100 px)

My clients have a very hard time understanding the layout limitations of the
web, browser issues, font style choices, and that the site will look
different on each monitor, layout, screen size, the colors, that the type
moves when you resize the window etc.
I spend an awful lot of time explaining why certain things just won't
fly....

FWIW a bunch of DW/Flash sites I go to have completely illegible tiny tiny
text which is NOT resizable for the user, and many times the fixed layouts I
cannot see the bottom of the pages and they neglect scroll bars in the
designs, very annoying. The pages do not resize thus preserving the nice
artistic layout but at expense of viewers like me who just cannot see it at
all.

Not to mention the site should be viewable on a cell phone....

OK the bad news is my client loves what I made for her and is referring me
business.
And I am not a real web designer and the last print job I messed it all up
cause I don't know Illy.............My blacks are mud brown and the magenta
is purple. I made the web site in RGB and then she needed it in print stuff.
I need to farm this stuff out to a contractor, like me make the design and
graphics and give the actual page build to someone else...

Stephen

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:00:29 -0400, KatWoman in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

<snip>

>OK the bad news is my client loves what I made for her and is referring me
>business.

Either that or your pricing model is too low. ;)

>And I am not a real web designer and the last print job I messed it all up
>cause I don't know Illy.............My blacks are mud brown and the magenta
>is purple. I made the web site in RGB and then she needed it in print stuff.
>I need to farm this stuff out to a contractor, like me make the design and
>graphics and give the actual page build to someone else...

I'm available.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

KatWoman

2006-07-10, 6:18 pm

"Stephen" <Stephen.D.Allen@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:slrneaa8i9.rvo.Stephen.D.Allen@sweetpig.dyndns.org...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:00:29 -0400, KatWoman in
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Either that or your pricing model is too low. ;)

No actually I quoted a price I felt was quite high so they wouldn't hire
me!! And I always know how it really takes so much more time than you think
it will and how much of a pain, endless edits and changes they ask for
etc...... I am retoucher and expert in making photos look better I really do
not even like making web pages. I like making the little graphics, logos,
banners, buttons, the creative part. Then there is the part of getting the
page on the search engines, making good meta tags, ad placements etc. That
part is really not my skill set.
I saw some Indian based designers with nice Flash for less than a third of
what I charged.

>
> I'm available.

OK if I get any requests I will contact you about seeing your stuff
and how much $ etc. for the project.