Minimum screen resolution for 2.2

[Nimdock]

that's a very ignorant statement :rolleyes:

No, what is ignorant is making a generalization out of one statement. I said people who can't see very well use that resolution, not that they are the only ones who use it.

Next time, use more critical thinking before jumping to call someone else's statement ignorant.


If you're happy with that resolution and can see very well, by all means, use it.

[Charles]

Temporarily increase your resolution or click a different tab and change section=xxxxx to section=help.

[Rikki]

Ah yes, you're right, my apologies. It's easy to fix that, I'll see if I can get it included in the next release :)

[.KX]

Couldn't you just make the tabs drop down onto a new line if the resolution is 800x600? ;)

[Rikki]

It'd be easier to have the logo image as a background, so that it just disappears behind the tabs if there is not enough space.

[.KX]

Ah, good thinking Batman.

[TestingSomething]

The only things that bother me in 800 by 600 is 1. I needed to have the sig image resizer, but it was taken out, sometimes still seems to be back in 2.2.0, sometimes seems to NOT be in 2.2.0, etc... and 2. the tab in ACP.

[VelvetElvis]

I'm afraid the trend in actual use is going the other direction. As more people are using personal devices, designers need to be assuming smaller sizes in order to hit the majority of the market. An alternative would be to make Lo-Fi fully functional.

See this sitepoint thread:

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434154

[.KX]

Why male lo-fi fully functional? Just have a special skin dedicated for use on portable devices.

[SnowBlower]

I use 320x200 and it looks horrible on here.

[sunrisecc]

Temporarily increase your resolution or click a different tab and change section=xxxxx to section=help.

I will use the section=help method.

Ah yes, you're right, my apologies. It's easy to fix that, I'll see if I can get it included in the next release :)

That would be great.

Thank you Charles & Rikki.

[TestingSomething]

I use 320x200 and it looks horrible on here.

lol


as for the 800 by 600 deal, the only reason i care is I have a vision problem also. So it's not like people are just too lazy to use a new resolution or don't want to change to it. I didnt want to change to IE7, but I did. This is different. But it's ok anyway, other than I wish someone would freakin tell me how to put image resizer back in, if it's not in now. On my site it DID seem to be back in for 2.2.0 and now suddenly it isn't. So I am confused.

[Keith J. Kacin]

If you have vision problems, another option is to use a tool that is built into most Windows installations to assit with this.

Start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> Accessibility -> Magnifier

No matter what resolution you use -- this will help you see the screen bigger.

[bfarber]

I have two 17" LCD's on my desktop, both running 1280x1024 and I would pump it up higher if I could. I HATE 800x600, it just looks horrible. Reminds me of the resolution on a Commodore 64.

As for IPS not catering to those with low resolutions, it's not that they are choosing to do so...by making something 800x600 compatible they are limiting the things they can do for the majority. They would rather progress the functionality of the majority, if it means limiting the use for the minority.

But rest assured it's not to cause such problems, or be discriminatory - it's to provide better service and appearance to their customers.

This is 100% spot on. By catering/specifically supporting lower resolutions we are seriously hindering some of the "cool" things we can do - i.e. the profile. To be able to do what Matt did in the profile under 800x600 would look horrible, or would work horrible. By 'assuming' 1024x768 or higher, it came out much better.

I wear contacts...what's your point? :unsure: Why should I struggle with tiny text and layout? :rolleyes:

Like I said software shopuld be developed to work with any resolution...then everyone is happy :cool:

Simply...it's not possible while still maintaing the "good look" effect. You can design for any resolution if you don't care what it looks like in the end I suppose.

[~Dopey~]

anyone still use 800x600?

Hell no, I ain't blind :lol: ...that's a silly resolution. 1280 x 1024 is the best resolution :thumbsup:

[VelvetElvis]

I'm having an increasing number of complaints from users who want to be able to post from various handheld devices and can't. There needs to be a way for users of these devices to log in from lo-fi and access an alternate skin of some kind that provides full functionality.

Again, please look at the sitepoint link I posted. It is a discussion of this report which finds that

among other things, that the majority of people browse maximized or very close to it. That Mac user have bigger screens, but their browser are the same size as on any other platform. And, in order to support 95% of your visitors, you need to design for a maximum size of 776x424px.

[bfarber]

And tis why you can skin IPB to your heart's content. :)

[grumps]

While my own resolution is 1280x1024 on this particular monitor, my main monitor is a higher resolution widescreen and I think one thing that is overlooked by MANY designers these days....

Not everyone wants to surf with their windows maximized.

I know for myself, I prefer sites (and tend to more frequent sites) designed for 800x600 so that I can load a page and still work on things without having to use my entire desktop real estate. Personally, I find it somewhat arrogant of site owners to expect someone to use their entire desktop space to accommodate their site. For the most part, I frequent those sites only when absolutely necessary and, instead, spend much more time at the sites that place less demand on my available desktop space simply because I can be more productive.

[Charles]

I reduced my resolution to 800x600 and clicked around a bit. Amazing how different everything is and how much you miss. Like on Yahoo.com the whole left hand bar just vanishes.

[Antony]

I reduced my resolution to 800x600 and clicked around a bit. Amazing how different everything is and how much you miss. Like on Yahoo.com the whole left hand bar just vanishes.

And who uses Yahoo! anyway?

[Charles]

That's another topic :)

[grumps]

Charles, I was not intending to say resolutions of monitors should change, but that one of the advantages of having a large screen monitor, and certainly a wide screen monitor, is the ability to have multiple working windows occupying the same desk space. When any given application or website forces a minimum resolution, it does so at the expense of available desktop space. For an example, I routinely have my tech notes in a window, a couple of my favorite news sites opened in tabs, photoshop, and the web pages i am working on, etc and they all allow me to adjust my window size such that no overlap exists, and no horizontal scrolling necessary. It makes it real easy to maximize desktop space efficiency when no one app makes demands to occupy more than another one might.

Heheh, or is it just me who never surfs in maximized windows?

[Charles]

grumps... I was just sort of making an off hand comment not really directed to you or anyone else :)

I understand your point though.

I personally must use maximized windows. Like if I don't it drives me a bit nuts knowing it COULD be bigger and isn't. Just a preference as I say.

[R0CKY]

People may still use 800

[Justin]

And who uses Yahoo! anyway?

Well, if you're not being sarcastic... only recently was another entity able to surpass Yahoo! for most bandwidth used in a month (myspace)... I dont have a link handy but if you search around a bit I'm sure you can find the stories... might even have been posted about here on the IPS general chat forum...

Heheh, or is it just me who never surfs in maximized windows?

Check out my December desktop screenshot. ;-)