Old thread :)

[CapnK]

This thread has served its purpose, so I am locking it, just so you don't waste your time answering it. Thanks for all the replies!

----------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Wait to vote, until you've double checked... I am trying to determine "browser viewport size" (the amount of visible area for a web page displayed in your browser), NOT 'screen resolution'.)

Trying something out here...

I am working on a redesign of the site, with an eye towards expanding what we have beyond the current setup, and making it look a lot better, too (I hope... ). In order to do this as best possible, I would like to find out what size most folks are viewing the site at, and/or how many people are using what browser.

I'll attach some sample files to this post that you can use to easily find out what size viewport* your browser is letting you see. The Width is a bit more important than the Height, but it will also help me if you'll let me know if you have to scroll up and down when the image is as wide (or nearly as wide as) your browser window.

Also, would you let me know what browser it is you are using? If it is Internet Explorer, I would also like to know what major version you have, too. You can find that out by looking up at the menus at the top of your browser. Under the "Help" menu, click the "About" option, and it will say version 5, 5.5, 6, or 7. There will be numbers after the first number, but those numbers aren't that important for this, I just need the major version number.

Thanks In Advance, everyone!

Click on the following to see the different sizes:

#1
#2
#3

*These images are 10 pixels less in width than indicated, and should fill, or just barely over-fill, your browser viewport if it is the size these have in them. The "viewport" is the actual screen space that displays a webpage, not the overall size of the browser (which includes scrollbars and margins, etc...).

[CharlieJ]

I use  Firefox/2.0.0.14.

#3 still doesn't fill the screen across. #s 1 and 2 are way small.

[Captain Smollett]

Firefox 2.0.0.13

#1 is small

#2 and #3 are the same size, but the text in #3 appears much smaller.  Hope that makes sense.

[CapnK]

Oh, a note:

In Firefox, you might need to click on the image itself, once you have clicked on its link and it has loaded, in order to expand it to full size.

I think that is what you are seeing, John.

[TJim]

Explorer 7
1 is small
2&3 same size and about 70% hoizontally of the screen

[Captain Smollett]

Oh, a note:

In Firefox, you might need to click on the image itself, once you have clicked on its link and it has loaded, in order to expand it to full size.

I think that is what you are seeing, John.

Okay.  Yes.  (I've actually not used Firefox in years...just started back last week.  Been using the Mozilla Suite browser, which sometimes behaves differently).

When I click the images, #3 slightly "overfills" the screen (it's a touch too wide), so I guess my viewport is akin to 1014x761.  #2 doesn't change much.

[CapnK]

PS - Free Grog to all participants.

[s/v Faith]

IE 7 on this computer, will check the lab-top (firefox) later.  voted 600x800, all 3 boxes are smaller then browser screen.

[AdriftAtSea]

It'd be nice if the new format was floating width, based on browser window size, with a minimum size of SVGA (800x600), since very few machines, even subnotebooks come with less than XGA (1024x768) resolution nowadays.

[Shipscarver]

RE: Browser

#1 - 1/3 of screen
#2 - requires slight scroll down
#3 - requires scroll down and to side.

[Shipscarver]

Duh - that is using IE

[David_Old_Jersey]

IE version 6.

I've got 2 screens  ........

I am not a techie fella, but I would have thought this was the way to go.......

It'd be nice if the new format was floating width, based on browser window size, with a minimum size of SVGA (800x600), since very few machines, even subnotebooks come with less than XGA (1024x768) resolution nowadays.

Of course it is soooooooo easy to suggest things from this side of the internet 

[Frank]

It'd be nice if the new format was floating width, based on browser window size, with a minimum size of SVGA (800x600), since very few machines, even subnotebooks come with less than XGA (1024x768) resolution nowadays.

         duh  What does all that mean ?

[Tim]

It'd be nice if the new format was floating width, based on browser window size, with a minimum size of SVGA (800x600), since very few machines, even subnotebooks come with less than XGA (1024x768) resolution nowadays.

         duh  What does all that mean ?

Not important Sit back have a glass of wine, it will work itself out Their just showing off

[Auspicious]

Mozilla 2.0.0.14 -- I have my browser sized to about 2/3 the width and all the height of a good sized screen and #3 is still a tad smaller than my viewport.

[Lost Lake]

Okay, I'm running Mozilla 2.0.0.14 and number three is a hair taller than my viewosity portal.... 

I'm looking into buying a screen stretcher however.....

[skylark]

Firefox 2.0.0.13

#1 is small

#2 and #3 are the same size, but the text in #3 appears much smaller.  Hope that makes sense.

Same here except version 11

[maxiSwede]

Did I hear free grog!

Firefox and Safari on Macintosh

[Marc]

Cap'n,  I have IE7 here.  Marc

[CapnK]

Never done so much bartendin', this early in the day... 

Added/Optional Poll Question: Who else is jealous of David's twin monitor setup? </me raises hand> lol Must be nice, havin' that much "viewosity portalness"!

Frank and Tim, it's not all that complicated or hard to understand, really. Just so long as you remember that fidzldabob ell stanishment, pondo quan tenn varble do gabba, ee tayr vas gobbledeegook. Handars butly, amfor perdow twa sibbishlnest. Fenglet ard ghads bhwut joggle.

See? Nothing to it...