Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

I know many developers and those that have large monitors usually have multiple windows open on them, with none "maximised". The point that the Boxes and Arrows article and many others here make is the key one: knowing the size of the monitor doesn't tell you much about the size of the browser w

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

Just another thougth, maybe far fetched, but what about all those ultra portables? Should they all be left out? They don't come with super wide monitors. There is a limitation to what you can fit on a 10"-12" monitor... Have a great weekend -- Håkan Reis Dotway AB My blog || http://blog.reis.se

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

Hmm... tough situation. How much content do they want above the fold? It sounds like too much, regardless -- like Steve Krug says, "Omit needless words". Get rid of all that "Welcome to" BS, verbose instructions and the like. After you've cut things down, do it again. It's a fact that users just do

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

That is an awkward position. It sounds like you have a lot of excellent solutions--I'd also add that, if you find 1024px+ is indeed an overestimate, you can rest safely in knowing that "the fold" is much less of an priority ( http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of, http://www.usei

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

Had the same issue at my client. What we settled on was a 1280 design, but all the core message/buttons had to be mostly visible inside the ~1000x730 that's left after browser and XP chrome and scrollbars. We use liquid layout for the verticle when text is long to avoid keyhole/scrolling, but k

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

On Mar 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Håkan Reis wrote: > I would do as suggested. Provide liquid deisgn to support both 1024 > and wider resolutions. But for som extra information regarding the > actual application size there are some interesting facts. One major reason we don't design pure liquid

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

Even if most of the programmers and system admins who might use your client's products have ultra-large monitors, it's not always those people who make important purchasing decisions. Depending on your client's product, keeping that in mind might be helpful when arguing your case. But my initial r

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

The question is: Do you want to design for the future or the past? Find out the trend by doing your research (Google) and design accordingly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=26943 ___

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

I would do as suggested. Provide liquid deisgn to support both 1024 and wider resolutions. But for som extra information regarding the actual application size there are some interesting facts. Back in 2005 I wrote a post regarding this My screen resolution

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

I'd please the client and at the same time make sure it gracefully degrades to smaller resolutions..don't fight, maneuver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=26943

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

1st option: Just as Abi mentioned if there a analysis or proof to show that a high percentage of users have 1280px then its worthwhile to design for the said resolution. 2nd option: If not then stick to the safe side and use a liquid resolution. 3rd option: The only other option is to provide a '

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

Why does it have to be a specific size? Could it be mutli-size compatible? On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Juan Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My client, an IT company, is very strong on the position that their new > website design should be bigger than 1024px wide (1280px wide). They know >

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

I'd fight this fight, but think there's plenty to be done with a design that's technically meeting their requirements, but has 95%+ of the content and functionality inside a more reasonable boundary. The "IT Industry" is a wide thing, and even most developers/designers I know firsthand* use dual-m

Re: [IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

1. I'd want to know if they had the analytics to back up that high resolution claim. 2. Wide screens don't mean wide browser windows. A lot of times they mean side-by-side windows. 3. A really well thought out liquid layout might help you find a common design ground on this. . . . . . . . . . .

[IxDA Discuss] argument for designing 1024px wide

My client, an IT company, is very strong on the position that their new website design should be bigger than 1024px wide (1280px wide). They know that the majority of their customers are from the IT industry, and therefore, they will have monitors with high resolution and screen size. Their arg