sailFar.net

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... ;D). 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! ;D

Click on the following to see the different sizes:

#1 (http://sailfar.net/images/6x45.gif)
#2 (http://sailfar.net/images/8x6.gif)
#3 (http://sailfar.net/images/1x7.gif)

*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...).

I use  Firefox/2.0.0.14.

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

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.

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.

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

Quote from: CapnK on April 24, 2008, 11:47:06 AM
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.

PS - Free Grog to all participants. ;D

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

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.

RE: Browser

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

Duh - that is using IE

IE version 6.

I've got 2 screens  ;D........

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

QuoteIt'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  :)

Quote from: AdriftAtSea on April 24, 2008, 02:14:01 PM
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 ?

Quote from: Frank on April 24, 2008, 07:01:13 PM

Quote from: AdriftAtSea on April 24, 2008, 02:14:01 PM
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 ;D

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.

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

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

Quote from: Captain Smollett on April 24, 2008, 11:45:10 AM
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

Did I hear free grog! ;D

Firefox and Safari on Macintosh

Cap'n,  I have IE7 here.  Marc

Never done so much bartendin', this early in the day...  :-X :D

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"! 8)

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... ;D

Quote from: CapnK on April 25, 2008, 08:24:56 AM
Never done so much bartendin', this early in the day...  :-X :D

Cheers!........now the question is........how do I actually drink it?  :P

Grog credits are redeemable in person, anywhere in the world we happen to meet. ;D

Quote from: CapnK on April 25, 2008, 08:24:56 AM


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... ;D

Oh, that part I understand, what I don't get is why Y'all don't just hit the "fit to screen" button and go back to sailin', drinkin', scr.... , ;)  ;D

Seriously Kurt thanks for optimizing our viewing pleasure, by the way I'm in the Firefox crowd with #2 being best fit when clicked on.

Tim

3 is the best.  I also have two monitors here at work (sshhhh, I'm posting from work :D).  At home I have to make due with a 32"

I have a two-head setup in my trailer -- no where to put it on the boat. My IBM Thinkpad supports two heads and sometimes I plug the TV in and use it as a second screen.

A site design should rather be built for all browsers, as opposed to polling existing users on their setups. Ideally you should build a fluid layout that can expand and contract across most common resolutions, with a fixed base resolution at 1024x768.

If you do your coding in Firefox, and then 'back-code' for IE 6 & 7, you will probably have the least amount of trouble. A nice plugin for coding and getting your CSS right is 'Firebug' for Firefox.

Coding nicely designed websites for all browsers is really tough work that most people don't appreciate, but well worth it. Don't forget to put SEO stuff into your design strategy before you start work.

nick

IE 7,
and all 3 images are smaller than my viewer window...

Bill

Nick-

Unfortunately, not all browsers play nice... and IE, even though it is the majority of the browser base, is one of the least standards compliant.... IE7 is a bit better, but IE6 was truly horrible.  Even standards compliant browsers have slightly different interpretations of what the standard is IMHO.

I agree that  fluid layout that can expand a bit, with a base resolution of either SVGA or XGA makes sense, but it needs to be a CSS-based design, and have stylesheets for printing and low-bandwidth connections.  Also, having it expand too wide will make reading the text very difficult to read, since the line lengths, leading and type size won't be appropriate for each other.

All three are small, 2@3 are 70 % of screen. Looking forward to new site captk. when ya goin ta have it done?

I do develop on FF (I use the Web Developer plugin, and will also check out that one you mention, Nick - Thx, Grog!), then 'back-code' for IE/check for bugs, check rendering and make fixes. I also check to see what it looks like for Opera, Konq, and yes, even Lynx. :)

I also check page rendering on different hardware architectures and platforms - you'd be surprised what a difference an OS can make, or the style/type of say, the computer monitor. I develop on Linux, and have found that there are things Windows does which can make a page look far different in even the same browser, but on a Win platform. My laptop here has 6 different OS'es on the hard drive - the Vista it came with (yuk), 3 "Linii" ;), and W2K and XP running on VirtualBox in one of the Linux installs. ;D

And then, when I think I finally have it all right ;), I run the code through the W3C validator, and pick off the last bits. :) The only major browser I don't have access to on a regular basis is Safari, but I'm fairly certain that all of the above should ensure that what Safari users see is pretty darned close to what is intended.

The reason for the poll was as a non-scientific check of what you read in so many design articles/books/blogs/etc regarding the statistics of people browsing w/a 800pix width ("50%"). I don't think it is as many as it was a few short years ago, but it is still a surprising number.

I wanted to check if what I saw on computer repair jobs locally was borne out more or less in the sailFar membership (ie; instead of the 50% of folks yuo commonly read as a given stat, about 25-30+% use an 800p width browser page - which is a still-large percentage). Because of this, I tend towards making a page design fit into 800pix. Raise your hand if you hate side-scrolling. ;D

Flo - Still working on it here and there a little at a time, maybe a couple weeks yet. It's nothing major for the time being, just a redesign of how the index page looks. I'm too busy working on sites which generate cash to pay for dog food and vet bills right now... ;D The vet ticked me for $127 yesterday - Buffett tested positive for heartworms (though she couldn't hear anything with the 'scope, and he shows no lack of energy or any other symptoms), Molly has an ear infection, and both dogs have a bacterial infection probably from swimming/drinking in the duck pond by Lands End. And I'm still looking at another $150+ for the annual vaccs in a couple weeks! Sheesh!  :D It seems that the budget this year for CrewDog "maintenance and upkeep" will run about $750 per. But do I get a tax break for that? NO... Ah, well... ;D

Quote from: CapnK on May 25, 2008, 07:59:34 AM
  :D It seems that the budget this year for CrewDog "maintenance and upkeep" will run about $750 per. But do I get a tax break for that? NO... Ah, well... ;D

:( Sorry to hear about the Crew's health issues and expenses, but it's still a lot cheaper than a teenage kid  ::)

CapnK-

You're actually missing two major browsers.  Opera and Camino, but Camino, like Safari is Mac OS X only.

Tim - I bet it is! lol Unless you were like my folks, who had so many kids that *none of 'em* could be expensive on their own, even if they wanted to. A great impetus to start working at a tender age, that. ;D

Dan - You musta read too fast. Opera's there, and Camino - well, it uses Gecko, the Moz rendering engine, same as FFox. Or IceWeasel and other Moz variants.

Look here: http://www.mozilla.org/products/choosing-products.html

QuoteBuilt with Gecko

All Mozilla products are built on top of Gecko. Gecko is the revolutionary browser layout engine that's fast and designed to support open Internet standards such as HTML, CSS, XML, RDF, and JavaScript.

But now that you mention it, I realize I have never ever seen Camino as a user agent any of my logfiles. Prolly 'cause it just shows up as Gecko, or Moz, if it's being used...

As long as it down loads fast in a weak connection. I'm happy.

this looks like was too much work for cruising. ;D Thanks for the better stuff.

what is a browser widow viewerport? What ever I 'm fine.