website resolution?

33L

33L

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,807
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
i am building a website in basic HTML as not clued up on flash yet!


currently making sure it all nice and viewable at a resolution of 1152x864 iirc.

is this too big does anyone have screen resolutions of 1024x768. Is it worth taking those with the smaller monitors into consieration?

it is photography based if thats of any use?
 
3rd that.. It used to be that you could make it 800x600 but accommodate for those in the dark ages using 640x480, then it was for 1024x768 but accomodate for the 800 wide.. Now you have have to consider widescreens, PDA's and all sorts of variables.. :bonk:

Or build it in flash so it vector scales :lol:
 
Hmmm bring back Window's 3.1 with Netscape and 800x600. The good old days
 
Of course, you could (should!) design your pages to flow to fit any viewport.

Do small screen devices downsize large images to fit? (I don't use a mobile, being as I'm one in a million.)
 
balls.... going to have to rethink the website again!
 
its mainly the gallery thats giving me grief with image sizes. - i guess i could always have a page that opens seperatly to view the enlarged picture. what allowances would you use for the brwsers?
 
I use a flash gallery called BananAlbum which works in any screen resolution
 
is it a good idea to mix mainly an html site with a flash based gallery. does it not feel a bit bodged together?
 
how customisable is that gallery?
 
In terms of colour, thumbnail size, default size etc its customizable. There's different layouts too.

There's a few other flash ones that I tried, so you may well be able to find one that works more to your requirements.

This just seems an easy way to do and you don't need to be a web builder to use it. Simply use the application, drop the images in to it, spec what you want and it churns out a html page including the flash item and the respective folders to use on the site. I just use it within a frame.

I just like the way it will work on any screen resolution. Note that I only used 800 wide pics on the gallerys that I uploaded
 
it might be the easiest thing to use to be honest most of my images are 800max width for landscapes and 600max height for portrait.
 
Can't you use percentages?

I recall in Dreamweaver being able to set widths and heights using percentages.
 
are you refering to images being in % or the frames?
 
I set up the gallery within a frame in the bottom 80% (i think) of the screen. Then the flash player resizes accordingly.

Should be centre justified though
 
I think i am going to use the flash route. it save a shed load of time. i dont have to worry about my page anymore and make my life soooo much easier.
 
I tend to aim at 1024x768 because I feel the majority of people still use this, especially businesses. Also bear in mind that at 1024x768 there are still tool bars and various other junk around the browser page so typically I'd build the actual pages to about 900x600 or something :)
 
Don't worry about the height because different pages will be of a different height depending up on their content. I'd failsafe down to a maximim width of 777px though to ensure no one sees on unsightly horizontal scroll bar, that is if a fluid layout is beyond your skills just yet.
 
Don't wish to take over the subject, but I'am in the same predicament.
I have two old rusty web sites running which were built some 8 yrs ago with haste, built with frames, left, top and bottom, using html and some other scripts.
Decided to open my own subject .

I am considering building a photography site on the simaler bases but with less clutter & just two frames, top and bottom, would it work ?.



thanks..
 
This is the current stats from my site


1280 x 1024 seems to be the most common.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top