Here's a bit of data that web users/designers may find interesting. This is a table of (rounded) screen resolutions and months that the data was collected. I've had a javascript function to tailor pages to the screen resolution of visitors to a few web sites, and "databased" the results. Here's how it breaks down: 2004-03 2004-10 2005-01 2005-03 640x480 2 % 0 % 1 % 1 % 800x600 34 % 30 % 24 % 23 % 1024x768 54 % 55 % 57 % 58 % 1200x960^ 11 % 15 % 18 % 19 % So, by these numbers the ubiquitous 800x600 screen resolution that pixel-based programs have to design for are now used by fewer than one quarter of the users out there. I think that this is significant. Also, on the certification topic, is LPI still an entity at all? For distribution-neutral certifications, I thought that it used to be the pinnacle, or at least they intended to become that, but it didn't even merit a mention in a dozen or so emails on this list. I do agree that a task-based test is going to tend to be a more valid measure of skills than a multiple-choice, but I thought the LPIC-2 was pretty tough. Regards, -Don
On Tue, April 19, 2005 6:41 pm, Don Erickson said:
So, by these numbers the ubiquitous 800x600 screen resolution that pixel-based programs have to design for are now used by fewer than one quarter of the users out there. I think that this is significant.
It's important to remember though that the 800x600 screen reaches both the 1024 and the 1280 user though, giving it an overwhelming market share, while the 1024 and larger screens "miss" the lower resolution market.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
It's important to remember though that the 800x600 screen reaches both the 1024 and the 1280 user though, giving it an overwhelming market share, while the 1024 and larger screens "miss" the lower resolution market.
Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting that pages don't have to display properly on 800x600 screens. I guess that I'm suggesting, due to the wide range of resolutions that most people are using, that static-sized pages should be depricated and authoring dynamically-sized pages should be more of a priority. I had three hits at 3820x1024 resolution. What the heck is that, a wide screen TV? This is what I've got so far for April, s_wt is screen width, s_ht is height: mysql> select s_wt,s_ht,count(s_wt) from screenres where date rlike '2005-04' group by s_wt; +------+------+-------------+ | s_wt | s_ht | count(s_wt) | +------+------+-------------+ | 1024 | 768 | 2932 | | 1056 | 792 | 2 | | 1120 | 840 | 10 | | 1152 | 864 | 220 | | 1267 | 993 | 1 | | 1280 | 1024 | 785 | | 1344 | 840 | 6 | | 1400 | 1050 | 79 | | 1440 | 900 | 38 | | 1536 | 960 | 2 | | 1600 | 1200 | 94 | | 1680 | 1050 | 29 | | 1792 | 1344 | 2 | | 1800 | 1440 | 1 | | 1920 | 1200 | 18 | | 2048 | 768 | 9 | | 2304 | 864 | 2 | | 240 | 320 | 2 | | 2560 | 1024 | 2 | | 560 | 420 | 1 | | 640 | 480 | 25 | | 768 | 1024 | 1 | | 800 | 600 | 1213 | | 819 | 614 | 1 | | 832 | 624 | 5 | | 960 | 600 | 2 | | 969 | 768 | 1 | | 998 | 701 | 1 | +------+------+-------------+ 28 rows in set (0.06 sec) I am also aware that my suggestions traditionally have a null effect on reality. I just thought it was interesting, and I haven't seen this data presented anywhere. It was a big shift when the "conventional web wisdom" abandoned the 640x480 screen resolution. I don't see that happening to the 800x600, but the range is so wide now that dynamically-sized pages are certainly the way to go in the future, and the present. But then, I'm still waiting for the browser that renders vector graphics. Regards, -Don
I had three hits at 3820x1024 resolution. What the heck is that, a wide screen TV?
No, even the widest screen available is like 1080i, which runs at 1200x1080 interlaced. I'd guess its someone with three monitors running side by side, since the numbers almost compute. Since google brought up several game related multimonitor sites, I'm gonna guess that's the case. Which means, that you're basically working with a 1280 x 1024 screen, since splitting that up would make your page a pita to read. Justin Dugger
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Justin Dugger wrote:
I'd guess its someone with three monitors running side by side, since the numbers almost compute. Since google brought up several game related multimonitor sites, I'm gonna guess that's the case. Which means, that you're basically working with a 1280 x 1024 screen, since splitting that up would make your page a pita to read.
Oops, I was responding to this point in the previous email to "Jack". It's that damned randomizer in pine, nothing wrong with the operator. Regards, -Don
Something that's been skirted in this discussion is the idea that the whole point of a windowing environment is that no one application takes all of the resources - they share the screen, so whatever the screen's maximum resolution is, any given app should take _less_ than that for it's standard resolution. That's been something that's frustrated me. We have this ideal of multiple working windows, but unless you're on some super-pricey graphics workstation you're usually reduced to maximizing each application in turn to make the most of your resources.
In my enlightenment setup, I just use several desktops. I can have an application max'ed on one, several of my coding vim windows on another. I can't flip back and forth with a key combo or a simple mouse gesture. The point of this post is to point out that a window environment is only going to be as useful as you make it to be. On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
Something that's been skirted in this discussion is the idea that the whole point of a windowing environment is that no one application takes all of the resources - they share the screen, so whatever the screen's maximum resolution is, any given app should take _less_ than that for it's standard resolution.
That's been something that's frustrated me. We have this ideal of multiple working windows, but unless you're on some super-pricey graphics workstation you're usually reduced to maximizing each application in turn to make the most of your resources.
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
//========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <dhageman@dracken.com> || \\========================================================//
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 D. Hageman wrote:
In my enlightenment setup, I just use several desktops. I can have an application max'ed on one, several of my coding vim windows on another. I can't flip back and forth with a key combo or a simple mouse gesture. <snip />
I've got enlightenment set for 6 virtual desktops, each 2048x768 at work, and 4 virtual 1600x1200 at home. It's very handy. You can spread it out as much as you want. Chris - -- I digitally sign my emails. If you see an attachment with .asc, then that means your email client doesn't support PGP digital signatures. http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/faqs.html#q1.1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCZ+tLE5xXU3JS1mQRAv74AKCF2QWs5FXzgl3BCMa+HrvFH8SyAgCfeSul DPCd7HUDbt28lf/IGwKL97o= =XYEl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
Chris Bier -
D. Hageman -
Don Erickson -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Justin Dugger