A Question of Resolution...

[Jason Dunn]

The current Pocket PC Thoughts layout has been around for a couple of years, and it's time for a change! We're working through how we want to make the changes, but one question we have is the resolution we want to support. One of the goals in the new layout is to allow us to display more content on the home page, and part of that means looking at the total "square footage" of our home page.<br /><br />For the question below, I'm asking specifically about the size of your browser window - some people browse full screen, so in that case, it's the size of your display resolution. If you don't browse full screen (I don't), select the option that comes closest to the size of your browser window.<br /><br />We're also open to suggestions that you might have about how to improve the layout of the home page - share your concepts with us!

[KTamas]

I'm using 1024×768, and i like the current layout.

Only if IPB 2.0 possible... :roll:

[Darius Wey]

Only if IPB 2.0 possible... :roll:

If I may ask, why IPB over phpBB?

[Jason Dunn]

Only if IPB 2.0 possible... :roll:

I'm having trouble decoding what you're saying here - I didn't mention a forum change, although that happens to be something that we're looking at - but what does that have to do with resolution?

[omikron.sk]

I voted for 1024x768, but use 1152x864 (fullscreen) - that choice should have been there definitely - I think that lots of people use it.

[alizhan]

One of the goals in the new layout is to allow us to display more content on the home page, and part of that means looking at the total "square footage" of our home page.
Personally, I would like to see less on-screen information on the main page, not more. While still substantially better than many sites, IMO it's still cluttered to the point that much of it just gets lost as visual noise. I can't speak for others, but I basically ignore everything but the central article column in most cases. More is not always better on a webpage.

I think that the best designs keep the focus of each page simple. Since PPT is still primarily a news ticker site (at least, that's how it seems to me), the front page should show headlines. That's it. For each of the other domains of interest, create another central page (e.g., pocketpcthoughts.com/prices, .../articles, etc.). Linkage between the domains should be kept simple (links to the central pages only), and should be well marked and easy to find (perhaps using the "tabbed dialog" metaphor along the top of the page?).
If you don't browse full screen (I don't), select the option that comes closest to the size of your browser window.

Neither do I, and I get very annoyed when a site forces me to go full-screen. The whole point behind HTML was that the browser/user know how to lay out the information better than the server, and yet most websites now assume exactly the opposite.

Frustrating.

BTW, my browser windows are 800x1024 (they used to be 700x1024, but too many websites force 800 pixels wide now for that to be practical). This layout gives it more of the "printed page" aspect ratio than the standard 4/3 layout. Tracking text all the way across a mighty 1280 pixel span is not fun.
We're also open to suggestions that you might have about how to improve the layout of the home page - share your concepts with us!
As I mentioned above, PPT is doing pretty well for a three-column, headered layout. With the current layout, the only suggestion I would have is to rethink what controls you've put where. You've got controls on the left, top, and right. The user has to scan all three of those places to find what they are looking for, and even then can easily overlook it because the styling is so "smooth" that the controls don't always stand out. Case in point: how many people never see the "Submit News" control on the top right? I would suggest choosing one location for all the controls. Leave the rest of the page free for formatting.

Just my $0.02.

-- Mark

[GoldKey]

While you are at it, you could make all three sites the same. PPCT and SPT are one size while DMT is smaller.

[Darius Wey]

I voted for 1024x768, but use 1152x864 (fullscreen) - that choice should have been there definitely - I think that lots of people use it.

The intention of this thread is to gauge people's typical browsing habits with respect to resolution. The current target is 800x600 which accommodates for the vast majority of our readers; however, this only allows a limited amount of content to be displayed. Ideally, if the typical browsing resolution is greater than 800x600, we can push the target to 1024x768, thus allowing us to safely display more content. That is why there are only three options in the poll: 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024 or higher. If your resolution is in between that, vote for the lower one. :)

I'd love to have my browser resolution in that poll too (1920x1200), but that's not one of the target resolutions we are looking at. :P

[Darius Wey]

While you are at it, you could make all three sites the same. PPCT and SPT are one size while DMT is smaller.

Actually, to my recollection, the targeted resolution of all three sites is the same. PPCT and SPT function on variable width, while DMT functions on fixed width. DMT uses fixed width as a result of a poll that was conducted there - where there was a greater support by the readers for a fixed width layout as opposed to a variable width layout. So while it has the impression of being "smaller", they are about the same.

[dean_shan]

As long as you keep the same color scheme you can make what ever changes you want.

[MikeUnwired]

Go old school and take it down to 640 x 480 -- so I can browse the full site on my hx4700. :D

Seriously, I'm browsing at 1440 x 900, so you'd have to really crap-up the screen with ads to cut down on the content I already see. I think 1024 x 768 is a good standard to design to for most people -- but leave that center column default to the full browser window size if the viewer is using a higher resolution setting.

[Darius Wey]

Go old school and take it down to 640 x 480 -- so I can browse the full site on my hx4700. :D

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/mobile/

;) - One link solves all! :D

[TopDog]

On my two PC's at home I have 1024x768 resolution (can't afford new monitor or laptop), running FF at max. At work I have 1400x1050 resolution, but then my browser never occupies the full screen, because I use all the space to have different apps visible at the same time, so I voted 1024x768.

[Jon Westfall]

As long as you keep the same color scheme you can make what ever changes you want.

I don't know, maybe time is right for a color change. Don't know what color would look good, but a nice calming forrest green might be an option. You might look too canadian then though... ;) just kidding.

[PeterLake]

Please don't forget us portrait-view users.

[Oregon Trail]

I use 1024x768. Even adjusting the text size at 1280x1024 the letters are to small for my aging eyes. Quantity is nice but if it is a struggle to read it, what's the point?

[Ed Hansberry]

One of the goals in the new layout is to allow us to display more content on the home page, and part of that means looking at the total "square footage" of our home page.
Personally, I would like to see less on-screen information on the main page, not more. While still substantially better than many sites, IMO it's still cluttered to the point that much of it just gets lost as visual noise. I can't speak for others, but I basically ignore everything but the central article column in most cases. More is not always better on a webpage.

Just an FYI - you can disable any module you like as a subscriber (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/subscribe.php). See the Site Customization section.

[Silver5]

My screen resolution on my laptop is 1920x1200 so there's plenty of space. However, I like to have two browsers open at the same time alot of the time, thus each uses half of that 1920 across the width. That comes out right around 800...for me, the site is perfect as it is.

I agree with another post, forgot the name, who stated that there may be too much on the homepage. Maybe organizing it a bit would help, and that way more news can fit on the screen and the other stuff can be linked to, for those who are actually interested in it.

I love the site as it is though, so there really is no big need to change!

[OSUKid7]

1280x1024 here, :D :lol: I usually have ny browser (Firefox) maximized too.

I'm actually quite pleased with the current design, but it'll be nice to see what's next. :) Will Fabrizio be designing it?

Regarding the forum choice - I am always amazed with how much you've customized phpBB here, but I'd imagine you could do the same (or more) with IPB. IMO, IPB is a better forum system - at least on the user level.

[qgman]

Please don't forget us portrait-view users.
Ditto. Most tablets are 768 by 1024 in portrait mode. If you could trim 32 pixels off the current width, that would be perfect...

[KTamas]

Only if IPB 2.0 possible... :roll:

If I may ask, why IPB over phpBB?
Cause i like it much more and IMO It's way better :)

@Jason: I know, it was just an off-topic idea :)

[Jason Dunn]

Please don't forget us portrait-view users.
Ditto. Most tablets are 768 by 1024 in portrait mode. If you could trim 32 pixels off the current width, that would be perfect...

Aplogies to the Tablet PC users, but asking us to make our layout even narrower isn't an option.

[OneAngryDwarf]

I run at 1600x1200 but I still voted to have it fit 800x600... I like it when sites are designed to fit smaller because I'm then able to put several windows up on my screen at a time and still be able to read most of them at the same time... i rarely browse at full screen... heck i'd probably wear out my neck looking back and forth... I think its great that you guys want a new design... means you are always trying to improve things but in this case I kind of think if it aint broke don't fix it. This site is still very attractive and is extremely easy to navigate both on the PC and PPC... I love it... if only other news sites including things like CNN, and Fox News made such a user friends site.. Glitz and glamour is cool but not when u just want to get the latest on what's up

[gorkon280]

Why do websites insist on needing to do a change? I personally like everything the way it is. I hate it when websites I use get redesigns because nothing ends up where it was and it takes me three weeks to find everything I was used to. I understand changing if the users are asking for it, but have there been people asking for it? Slashdot has been the same with MINOR changes over the years. I like it alot. Sure, they can update somethings here and there, but they keep it evolutionary then revolutionary. I guess I am going with if your going to make a change, make it evolutionary. Don't completely change the way it looks or works. Don't make a change just because you want to either. If there's a valid reason for it (update to RSS 2.0 or whatever), do it.

[arnage2]

i love my 1280x800 res on my 15.4inch widescreen laptop. (with ati 9600 video) Websites and IM windows, as well as games and movies take advantage of the landscape so well.

on my desktop, i run a pathetic 1024x768 b/c i have a really old monitor, on a very very fast machine

[Jason Dunn]

Why do websites insist on needing to do a change?

There are more reasons than I can list quickly, but I'd liken it to building a house from the ground up, then you realize after living there for a few years that things aren't working the way you want them too - people can't find the bathroom, the stairs are too steep, and there isn't enough wall space to show off the pictures you take. 8)

[Ed Hansberry]

Why do websites insist on needing to do a change?

There are more reasons than I can list quickly, but I'd liken it to building a house from the ground up, then you realize after living there for a few years that things aren't working the way you want them too - people can't find the bathroom, the stairs are too steep, and there isn't enough wall space to show off the pictures you take. 8)
This could be an interesting poll. "How many of you have ever rearranged the furniture in your house?"

I never do. I let my wife move stuff around in rooms I don't care much about, but in the areas I live, I like consistency... for years. Decades... :mrgreen:

[lmtuxinc]

I also voted for 1024x768, but use 1152x864 maximized Firefox.

(I also prefer IPB 2 over phpbb)

[daS]

Aplogies to the Tablet PC users, but asking us to make our layout even narrower isn't an option.
I do agree with one of the early posts in this thread: HTML was intended to allow the client to format the page. Of course, I understand the need to override this a bit in order to make a site look good. But please consider the fact that even on high res screens, some of us like to keep multiple windows open. Requiring more than 800 pixels to avoid horizontial scrolling is (IMHO) bad design.

[c38b2]

(I also prefer IPB 2 over phpbb)
I second this. IPB2 is awesome! 8)

[Darius Wey]

But please consider the fact that even on high res screens, some of us like to keep multiple windows open. Requiring more than 800 pixels to avoid horizontial scrolling is (IMHO) bad design.

Our intention is to avoid horizontal scrolling. None of us like it. That is why we question which resolution you browse at - if your monitor res is set at 1600x1200, yet you only have your browser window set to take up 1/4 of the screen, well then the option you pick in the poll should be the one that is closest to this (e.g. 800x600).

You know...I've looked through everyone's responses so far - am I the only person at 1920x1200 (on a 15.4" widescreen LCD)?!? 8)

[DuaneAA]

You know...I've looked through everyone's responses so far - am I the only person at 1920x1200 (on a 15.4" widescreen LCD)?!? 8)

How can you read the miniscule fonts they insist on using with your set-up? I have a 21.3" running 1600 x 1200 (Well, okay, I actually have a dual monitor setup with another 17" running 1280 x 1024) and the fonts are right at the edge of what I can comfortably read with my 47 year old eyes. My quick calc says your characters are only 72% the size on my monitor. Wow, no way could I read that!

Duane

[daS]

Our intention is to avoid horizontal scrolling. None of us like it.

Then it's easy: just stick with the lowest resolution and it will work for everyone. :)

if your monitor res is set at 1600x1200, yet you only have your browser window set to take up 1/4 of the screen, well then the option you pick in the poll should be the one that is closest to this (e.g. 800x600).

That's exactly what I did, but I thought it was worth commenting about my wish that web site designers would let HTML do what it was intended to do and not always force site visitors to comply with the author's idea of what resolution should be used by the browser window. Some of us choose not to always run applications full screen. :?

[JPD6825]

I'm actually a 1152 x 864 user. I picked 1024 x 768 as the closest choice.

I'd also caution: beware of crossing the line into clutter and visual noise...

[Darius Wey]

How can you read the miniscule fonts they insist on using with your set-up? I have a 21.3" running 1600 x 1200 (Well, okay, I actually have a dual monitor setup with another 17" running 1280 x 1024) and the fonts are right at the edge of what I can comfortably read with my 47 year old eyes. My quick calc says your characters are only 72% the size on my monitor. Wow, no way could I read that!

I don't even know what you're talking about... :lol:

Okay seriously... I have no trouble reading small text. I guess I've adapted to it over the past few years. :D My eyes start to water if I drop to a lower resolution because it looks horrid to me. :P

[Darius Wey]

Then it's easy: just stick with the lowest resolution and it will work for everyone. :)

It's so simple if it's put like that. But we would like to weigh it up between keeping it simple and low-res, and being able to take it one notch higher and hope to add additional content. Of course, with additional content, the aim is to add to the reader's experience by including more useful information, and improving the layout - this is why we want to hear the readers' comments. :)

[jeffmd]

while my main rig is 1280x1024, I must say that my other pc's and laptops are still all 1024 (cant afford a 20 inch monitor for all my rigs ^^), not to mention theres no saying web pages need to be full screen, so I think 1024x768 is the best target res for now.

[Iznot Gold]

I'm another one for leaving it as it is. I use large screen fonts because of my poor vision. Previous iterations of the site have not worked well with large fonts. It currently works brilliantly also current colour scheme works well, I'd be very conserned about a move to a lower contrast colour scheme.

Cheers

David

[DavidHorn]

Please don't move to a narrow layout like Digital Media Thoughts - I know it's supposed to be easier to read, but I prefer the Pocket PC Thoughts layout.

[SassKwatch]

More content? Why?

While there are some sites that scream out for periodic change, there are others where the layout/design/color scheme almost become a 'trademark' of sorts.....and significant changes have the potential to drive away as many current visitors as it would attract new ones. Obviously, what those changes are and how they are deployed can make all the diff in the world.

IMO, PPCT falls toward the 'trademark' end of the spectrum. It's popularity is at least in part due to a very appealing 'presentation' of the content. I, for one, would hate to see it become 'ESPNified'. I.e., a site where the home page is *too* busy.

As the saying goes, more ain't necessarily better. Different content maybe....though I'm not entirely sure what that might be. And while I'm certainly not opposed to changes, I think you might be walking a fine line between being very effective and trying to do too much.

[gibson042]

Please don't require a browser window wider than 800 pixels. 800 pixels is a great window width under almost any resolution, and I don't think I ever use one wider than 900 pixels (except when a site's design forces me to go fullscreen, which I never enjoy).

[Ed Hansberry]

More content? Why?
So posts don't scroll off the front page so fast, but without just increasing the size of the front page. I don't think anyone is trying to ESPN-ify the site. :wink:

Although, this guy may be on to something. http://www.arngren.net/
:rotfl: And believe it or not, he has cleaned it up a whole bunch!

[crdiddle]

It's popularity is at least in part due to a very appealing 'presentation' of the content.

...But we would like to weigh it up between keeping it simple and low-res, and being able to take it one notch higher and hope to add additional content.

I too vote for keeping it simple and easy to read. With my schedule I tend to scan the center column looking for information of interest. Adding clutter around the central column at the expense of readability is a step backwards.

[rflora]

I love your sight! I have been a typographer and graphic designer for over 20 years and my only suggestion would be to shorten the line length of your feature articles and forum postings to about 60 characters per line for 1024x768 screens resolutions. Otherwise, keep up the great work!

Casio e125>Toshiba e755>currently lusting for Dell Axim X50v.

[Kati Compton]

I use 1024x768. Even adjusting the text size at 1280x1024 the letters are to small for my aging eyes. Quantity is nice but if it is a struggle to read it, what's the point?

I'm not sure whether you mean adjusting the size globally in the OS or within your browser. So just in case you didn't know, you can do Ctrl-+ (no shift required - it's actually Ctrl-=) to increase the font size within the browser. Ctrl-- does the opposite.

[Darius Wey]

I use 1024x768. Even adjusting the text size at 1280x1024 the letters are to small for my aging eyes. Quantity is nice but if it is a struggle to read it, what's the point?

I'm not sure whether you mean adjusting the size globally in the OS or within your browser. So just in case you didn't know, you can do Ctrl-+ (no shift required - it's actually Ctrl-=) to increase the font size within the browser. Ctrl-- does the opposite.

And if you want to implement a global OS text size change, you can increase your DPI, by right-clicking the Desktop, and selecting Properties. Then click the Settings tab, and then the Advanced button. From there, you can modify your DPI settings.

[omikron.sk]

I use 1024x768. Even adjusting the text size at 1280x1024 the letters are to small for my aging eyes. Quantity is nice but if it is a struggle to read it, what's the point?

I'm not sure whether you mean adjusting the size globally in the OS or within your browser. So just in case you didn't know, you can do Ctrl-+ (no shift required - it's actually Ctrl-=) to increase the font size within the browser. Ctrl-- does the opposite.

CTRL + mouse wheel works the same way.

[Fuego]

I use 1024 x 768 (CRT 115 Hz refresh) and voted for 800 x 600. Normally I do not browse full-screen. Eye-sight is a problem, once you get into your mid forties, and you often find yourself using the text zoom function. I really do hate being forced into full-screen - not quite sure why, strange.

Thinking about getting a tablet atm. For that reason too, I'd not want to see it go wider.

[Oregon Trail]

I adjust within the browser. 1280 resolution just makes it too small, even with largest font.

[nutshell]

1024x768 - I run my browser windows about 3/4 screen using a res of 1280x1024

[Jason Dunn]

I just came back and read all the comments now...it's interesting to note that only 13% of you browse at 800 x 600 or so, but almost all of the comments are from people who don't want to see it go beyond 800 x 600. So you're definitely the vocal minority. ;-) But fear not, the resolution issue is one that I care about a lot and I won't make any rash decisions.