On Thursday 25 July 2002 02:13 am, Karen wrote:
150 pixels is FAR too small for any details to be visible. If you're going to do that then you've got to do the 'two image' thing and put a larger version on the image description page. Once upon a time I would have said that 100 pixels was ample but most people are using large screen monitors and working on at least 1000 pixels across the screen.
Where did you read that "most people are using large screen monitors and working on at least 1000 pixels across the screen"? My experience is that the vast majority of desktop users, even those with 21 inch monitors go with Windows defaults. Maybe XP detects this now and gives a larger default based on screen size, but previous versions of Windows use 800 by 600 pixels by default.
I haven't seen the research myself, but the IT department where I work always state that market research indicates that by far the largest single group of websurfers use Windows default resolutions. My coworkers and I are therefore constrained by lowest common denominator of 800 by 600 pixels and have to size everything appropriately -- which is annoying since my 21 inch monitor at work is at 1600 by 1200.
The 150 figure was a bare minimum figure and not really meant to be equivalent to the upper bound of 250 (which can be stretched to 300 in most cases without too much text squishing at lower res).
Just something for you to consider, I'm not proposing we make this policy or anything.
--mav
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Where did you read that "most people are using large screen monitors and working on at least 1000 pixels across the screen"? My experience is that the vast majority of desktop users, even those with 21 inch monitors go with Windows defaults. Maybe XP detects this now and gives a larger default based on screen size, but previous versions of Windows use 800 by 600 pixels by default.
I haven't seen the research myself, but the IT department where I work always state that market research indicates that by far the largest single group of websurfers use Windows default resolutions. My coworkers and I are therefore constrained by lowest common denominator of 800 by 600 pixels and have to size everything appropriately -- which is annoying since my 21 inch monitor at work is at 1600 by 1200.
The 150 figure was a bare minimum figure and not really meant to be equivalent to the upper bound of 250 (which can be stretched to 300 in most cases without too much text squishing at lower res).
Just something for you to consider, I'm not proposing we make this policy or
anything.
Maybe I'm wrong... my brother runs his monitor at the highest resolution he could push it too, with absolutely microscopic text. He's stretched his screen acrege to the limits... when I enlarged my monitor I found that I had to go up a size too.
I guess I just assume that other people are using better equipment than me because I am NOT an early adopter of new technology... until recently I was running a pentium 1 with minimum memory etc. I just don't see any point in having a large screen and running it at such a low resolution! Forget what I said before...
But I still don't like tables.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org