FM Homepage

[GrahamM]

Most web sites are optimised at 1024 x 768 resolution. Very few for anything less.

We're trying to find a compromise between what's attractive and welcoming (as some of you have described it) and what's not so attractive but easier to navigate - too 'busy' (as others of you have described it.

We know we'll never please everyone, as for some the home page will always be too 'busy' and for others it won't ever be communal or welcoming. But we'll carry on tweaking for a while and see if we come up with something that suits the majority.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

 

[Matt Brown]

Graham, my understanding is that most web designers still design for 800x600.

According to w3c (ie. the World Wide Web consortium who regulate web standards) as of July 2005, 25% of web users were still running 800x600.

Have a look at w3c Browser Statistics and scroll down to browser statistics.

I'd love to design for 1024x768 and the sooner people on 800x600 buy a new computer with a nice new screen I'll have to design for them too.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

To be honest I can take or leave the new HP content.

What looks ridiculous is the huge 3 white holes between the sections in the central column.

I note what was said about resultuion but most I suspect view in 800 X 600 and are not going to be aware when coming to the site for the first time that it is better viewed in higher resolution.

Can this be sorted and quickly and is a serious fault in the new page design.

 

[Matt Brown]

Many people don't have the option of running a higher resolution. Many older graphics cars will only allow 800x600 max.

 

[GrahamM]

Matt, I see it says that 55% of users are on 1024 x 768 resolution as against 25% on 800 x 600.

Nigel, you do see it stated quite often on some sites that 'this site is best viewed at 1024 x 768 resolution'.

More statistics here: Trend in Screen Resolutions.

Which begs the question, which screen resolution should we be aiming for to provide the best viewing experience?

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

"have you changed yet ED?

You'll see that everything is better!"



I might change --if I knew what it meant !!!!

 

[Matt Brown]

Graham it is certainly true that most people are now using 1024x768 and that every new computer currently sold in this country will be capable of at least that screen resolution.

However you have to design for the lowest common denominator.

Surely FM should appeal to ALL anglers not just the majority? Imagine if iPod only worked properly for 75% of it's customers!

My rule is that once they become a minority of 5% or less then it's time to stop designing for them.

 

[BLAM]

FWIW it used to look fine and now still does look fine on 1280x1024 which my desktop screens run at.

 

[Les Clark]

Changed mine to the 1024x768 , looks like the picture had been stretched ,gone back to the old res .

 

[Matt Brown]

Les, try at 1024x768 for a few days, you'll get used to it and then 800x600 will look daft!

 

[Les Clark]

Matt ,it really looked strange ,the side of the picture curved inwards and the print was too small.

 

[Matt Brown]

Les, it might be that your graphics card doesn't support the resolution then.

Normally the driver will only let you set the resoulution that it's capable of, but no always.

 

[Paul B]

the screen on this pc at work is set for 1024x768 and still has big white gaps between the sections. IMHO, felt it was better as was.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Well I've looked and I've read all the comments and I've looked again and personally I can't see much wrong with it.

 

[Big Swordsy :O)]

looks good now!