It's that time again. I (and others) need to have an idea of the most common screen size (in pixels) Summitpost members are currently using. Knowing the screen size of the page viewer makes it much easier to compose an acceptable page layout. Please, PLEASE respond with your screen size. Thanks, Mike.

Still using 1024 x 768 here at work.

Computer at home is set at 1600 x 900.

I commonly use 1024*768. Now that screens are getting wider, I suspect the default is higher.

1920x1200

All sizes are used, and it is possible to design the page to work with all of them. At work I have one size no one has listed yet, at home something lower, so with Buz, SoCalHiker, the others and me we are up 3-4 sizes already.

A while back someone posted this website. I have found it helpful in checking that a page looks ok with all sizes.

http://www.screen-resolution.com/#

Also I keep photos to 740px wide or less, so it shows ok even if someone's resolution is as low as 800x600.

I'd recommend folks put this little bit of code after sections of a page with large or several photos on the right, but not a lot of text. Very useful in dealing with multiple screen sizes.

<BR CLEAR=ALL>

This keeps the photos in the correct section, so a page looks like this:




instead of this:




EDIT: I removed my screen size because it shouldn't matter.

FortMental wrote:

thephotohiker wrote:It's that time again. I (and others) need to have an idea of the most common screen size (in pixels) Summitpost members are currently using. Knowing the screen size of the page viewer makes it much easier to compose an acceptable page layout. Please, PLEASE respond with your screen size. Thanks, Mike.

Who cares? Your page should show the same regardless of screen size.... That's basic web-site design 101. If you don't want jumbled images, make pages (on this site) using tables. They'll always show up the same on anybody's screen. Depending on table size, the scroll bar dimensions will change.

In fact, I normally have several instances of the browser open at one time, each non-maximized (below screen resolution).

FortMental wrote:AND.... if you make tables and borders white, no one will ever be the wiser.

That's true. I spent too much time before trying to align and position the images like I want with often no luck. I mostly use tables now if there are many photos on the site. I think that the quality of photos in tables is better, too, but that (most likely) is just my imagination.

MoapaPk wrote:

FortMental wrote:

thephotohiker wrote:It's that time again. I (and others) need to have an idea of the most common screen size (in pixels) Summitpost members are currently using. Knowing the screen size of the page viewer makes it much easier to compose an acceptable page layout. Please, PLEASE respond with your screen size. Thanks, Mike.

Who cares? Your page should show the same regardless of screen size.... That's basic web-site design 101. If you don't want jumbled images, make pages (on this site) using tables. They'll always show up the same on anybody's screen. Depending on table size, the scroll bar dimensions will change.

In fact, I normally have several instances of the browser open at one time, each non-maximized (below screen resolution).

Yes- agreed.

FortMental wrote:Oh, the irony!

http://www.summitpost.org/article/25339 ... oh-my.html

LOL!!! Hilarious!!!

Interesting how some of us can so effectively recall what we learned in Basic Web-Site Design 101, but forget lessons from Tactful Electronic Communications 301. Communications evolution, I suppose...

Anyhow, I'm at 1680 X 1050.

Cheers,

Sarah

1280 x 1024

Coincidently FortMental wrote me a very nice (and tactful) PM this morning on the issues he's raised earlier in this thread.

I really would like to provide readers with pages that look nice and read easily regardless of screen size - by using tables or whatever. But I'm a total html dweeb. Any code I use is on a monkey see, monkey do basis. I can do tables but have no idea how to use them to achieve the aim that FM suggests.

I've tried searching SP archives for some kind of simple process but I'm a search dweeb too and have had no success.

So, dear SP-ers, is there a simple process I can undertake to convert all my 100+ TR's, mountain, route etc pages to a format that you can all read without having to scroll, independent of your screen size and that's not going to keep me busy for the next month?

VI: find a page that behaves in the way you want, then right click on it and pick "view source" (that's the PC route). Then you get to see what other people did with html, to achieve that effect.

MoapaPk wrote:VI: find a page that behaves in the way you want, then right click on it and pick "view source" (that's the PC route). Then you get to see what other people did with html, to achieve that effect.

Sounds like monkey see, monkey do. Just my cup of tea. Thanks!

MoapaPk wrote:VI: find a page that behaves in the way you want, then right click on it and pick "view source" (that's the PC route). Then you get to see what other people did with html, to achieve that effect.

I'll be darned. For for the html-impaired like VI and me, these are the most informative 2 lines that have ever been written in SP!

If you use Google Analytics it will provide you with the screen resolution of your visitors.