Liked the site, BUT .... do you have permission to reproduce all those
logos? ...mmmm ... didn't think so, beware as you are using these logos to
promote your business.

Just some advice ... nice site

__/\/\/\/ Mr Oracle \/\/\/\__

'your reliable source of useless information'
"okiwan" <okiwan@sitegeist.net> wrote in message
news:2004060822363316807%okiwan@sitegeistnet...

A very common setup in your eyes, or is this a fact that you can prove?

__/\/\/\/ Mr Oracle \/\/\/\__

'your reliable source of useless information'

"The Doormouse" <doormouse@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95034B5AB9834doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6...

"__/\\/\\/\\/ Mr Oracle \\/\\/\\/\\__" <misteroracleSP@AMhotmail.com>
wrote:

I could prove it if I was willing to do a google search for site statistics
like soem kind of monkey, but it is not that important.

You be the monkey.

=D

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

here, I'll be the monkey...
http://www.channelminds.com/article.php3?id_article=649

this article is dated 2003.
[I've been using a screen rez of 1024x768 for about 6 years now.]

some 2004 stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/May/res.php

While it's still a common display, [and I wouldn't necessarily discount it when
designing pages] it is definitely losing favor.
With the advent of larger monitor screens, bigger hard drives, more powerful
CPUs, more RAM allotment slots on MoBos, and especially better video cards with
mucho onboard ram of their own, this screen rez setting seems cramped and as
outdated as the old 640 x 480 did some 9 or more years ago.

Seems 10% more people prefer more real estate for the information on screen and
less scroll. Doesn't sound like much unless you consider the full number of
people polled and the percentage of 640 x 480 users [6%].

ok, where's my banana......


---
Gem

Hmmmm, I have a visual of the Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show... someone
that can't be understood!

LOL! Nice one Les...

gempages@aol.comITITITIT (Gem) wrote:

My dear, you have earned your bananna!
At 38%+, one cannot ignore the lower resolution.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

What is it you have problems understanding? Do you want me to be an
interpreter?

/Tomas

On 2004-06-10 02:36:00 -0400, The Doormouse <doormouse@att.net> said:

you are stating a statistic out of content. does that 38% own web
sites? does that 38% own businesses that are willing to spend over 5k
in internet related in good and services? Next you will tell me that I
am missing out on 38% of the market share because my site doesn't fit
someone's 15 inch computer screen at 800 x 600. My target audience is a
totally different group of people. Read on how to design to your
specified target audience. I love how this group is so willing to shot
people down before knowing all the facts. In the end, it is the results
that I have gotten in the past that matter. Who where and when maybe
even how but def. why...

people stop thinking like drones. be willing to stretch your mind a
bit. it is called "being different."

Well, there was that episode where he said "Erdy berdi werdi, bwerdi werdi.
Hern hern berdi werdi!"

TIA

;o)

/Tomas

Designing for your target group and to know all about them is paramount.

I have asked questions about those figures before and not gotten any good
reply. What do they mean? 38% of who has got 800x600, and 3% of who uses
mac. If 3% of teenage gamers use mac - I wouldnt care less. I know that
atleast 15% of my main target group use mac. And of those 15%, some of my
biggest "consulting clients" are included. To ignore them based on some
questioinable statistic would be devastating for business...

/Tomas

Gem wrote:
A good website will scale well for all resolutions and sizes - that's
the difference between conventional (paper) design and internet design.

You can't just dismiss the lower resolutions as being obselete - there
are many developing technologies just coming into this scope. For
example, mobile internet devices are starting to use 640x480, have
complete www browsers, and are rapidly increasing in number.

To quote the w3schools.com stats page,
So for example, if your site intends on attracting successful
businessmen, the majority of them may only have time to access your
website whilst travelling, using a mobile device. If your site is
properly accessible, this person is a potential customer.

You shouldn't restrict your marketing by limiting it with a socially
unrelated statistic such as resolution.

--
Ben M.

okiwan wrote:
As a designer, your target audience is *not* the same as your client's -
theirs are likely to be "a totally different group of people".

Perhaps you should be investigating your _client's_ target audience -
after all you should be doing what is best for them, not thinking about
using the site as an advertisement for your own business. For example,
is a monitor manufacturer likely to sell monitors to those viewing in
1280x1024?

Some might say that designers with fixed layouts are the "drones"
thinking that everyone else is also uniform. Perhaps designers should
stop excluding people from their client's 'target audience' and instead
make accessible, flexible websites.

Through the internet, the client can market to everyone - there's
virtually no cost penalty if an unlikely customer views the website.
This is in contrast to traditional marketing such as TV or print where
the term 'target audience' came about so that marketers knew what
programs or newspapers to put their advertisements in.

Perhaps such terms are obsolete for websites, and they should be thought
of not as print adverts but as showrooms and shops. If you think of
websites in this way it would be ridiculous to exclude customers based
on their size or shape.

Think different,
--
Ben M.

I agree with you!

Though I think the focus should still be on the target group. Exclusion is
never good - but if one has to set priorities it sometimes is necessary.

The key is to communicate with your target group as best as you can. I think
you can make great web design that works on 800x600.

Another question - how is it like to work on a 15" screen?

/Tomas

Ben wrote:


Well said.

What many web designers call "being different" is really only "being lazy."

Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com







"Ben Measures" <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZXUxc.460$oE7.4247661@news-text.cableinet.net...

On 2004-06-10 05:00:10 -0400, "Dan"
<Dan@Freelance[removethis]Workshops.com> said:

excuse me - I spent a good 2 weeks developing this site as a self promo
- I hardly call that being lazy. My clients are not the typical "lazy"
800 X 600 15 inch monitor crowd. I do not sell $100.00 web sites like
some of these hacks out there. I sell custom design for my clients.
Look at the work I am promoting. and stop looking at my web site. My
site is well design. easy to navigate. A bit different because my
company is different and well planned out and far from being LAZY. but
thanks for the comments anyway. You know sometimes you jsut have to
follow your gut and what has worked for you in the past. My clients
demand a high level of design and I provide them with that, if not I
wouldn't be in business for the last 15 years.


Cheers.

Ben Measures <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote:

This is my opinion, too.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Tomas Holm <tomasUSEholm@hotmail.com> wrote:

It works great - my operating system and browser by default are optimized
to the 800x600 resolution, which looks fine on a 15" screen.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Ben Measures <saint_abroadremove@removehotmail.com> wrote:

For another example, while there are laptops with 17" screens, the majority
are going to be 15" or less. IMO the most user friendly resolution on a
screen that size and type is 800x600.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.