800 x 600 - Time to Move Upwards?
When the internet first became recognised as a proper medium for businesses (about 10 years ago), the average computer was a basic 486 model with Windows 3.1 as standard, and a box monitor that was bigger in depth than it was in height.
In those great, if not slightly nostalgic days, it was the norm to have your average monitor set to an 800 x 600 resolution. Even websites assured you at the bottom of their page that their web page was best viewed at an 800 x 600 resolution. Any less meant that you either had a bad eye problem or was slightly mad (must be bought on by the headaches that followed).
Now we are in a different century, and a different millennium for that matter and the average PC is not so average anymore. if you saw a computer from 10 years ago, you'd look to see if there was a handle on its CPU. Keyboards have changed, into slinky lightweight or orthopedic numbers, mice have gone wireless with funky wheels and monitors have got flatter but bigger. All can be had for a reasonable price, hence their popularity.
So why after all this time, do I still find people using the 800 x 600 resolution on these cinema screens of monitors? They look dreadful! The page looks like it has been zoomed in on and doesn't even look natural. The images don't look right, the words are so big that even Mr Magoo could see it from a distance and horizontal scroll bars are available in abundance.
Do these viewers think that every website they look at is naturally bad or does their expectations for a good website fall after a while? My money's on the second result.
Having said all that, I do still test my web pages at this low resolution. Although it does look rather cramped and I don't agree with it, if you type in "800 x 600 resolution" into Google(.co.uk), there are 3.4 million results, with 7 out of the first 10 results quoting "This site is best viewed on 800 x 600 resolution."
So out of 3.4 million different pages, how many could end up as prospective customers in the near future?
In those great, if not slightly nostalgic days, it was the norm to have your average monitor set to an 800 x 600 resolution. Even websites assured you at the bottom of their page that their web page was best viewed at an 800 x 600 resolution. Any less meant that you either had a bad eye problem or was slightly mad (must be bought on by the headaches that followed).
Now we are in a different century, and a different millennium for that matter and the average PC is not so average anymore. if you saw a computer from 10 years ago, you'd look to see if there was a handle on its CPU. Keyboards have changed, into slinky lightweight or orthopedic numbers, mice have gone wireless with funky wheels and monitors have got flatter but bigger. All can be had for a reasonable price, hence their popularity.
So why after all this time, do I still find people using the 800 x 600 resolution on these cinema screens of monitors? They look dreadful! The page looks like it has been zoomed in on and doesn't even look natural. The images don't look right, the words are so big that even Mr Magoo could see it from a distance and horizontal scroll bars are available in abundance.
Do these viewers think that every website they look at is naturally bad or does their expectations for a good website fall after a while? My money's on the second result.
Having said all that, I do still test my web pages at this low resolution. Although it does look rather cramped and I don't agree with it, if you type in "800 x 600 resolution" into Google(.co.uk), there are 3.4 million results, with 7 out of the first 10 results quoting "This site is best viewed on 800 x 600 resolution."
So out of 3.4 million different pages, how many could end up as prospective customers in the near future?
Posted: 27 February 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home