Mon, August 2nd, 2004 by darragh hehir
I designed my own photoblog to fit, without a scrollbar, on a screen resolution of 800x600. According to browser stats sites, the proportion of users with this rez setting is now at 37% and is set to continue declining as more and more move to the higher 1024x768 setting.
I use the 1024x768 rez myself but decided to browse some of the most popular photoblogs on 800x600 and have found that while I usually have to browse in Full Screen Mode to see all the picture without scrolling, the visual experience is definately superior. On my own site I find the image size of 400x300/300x400 pleasant on 800x600 while too small on 1024x768, certainly by comparison with many other photoblog sites.
I am now considering redesigning my site for the majority 1024x768 resolution or at least 800x600 in Full screen mode and am curious as to what other photobloggers think regarding some issues I'm considering:
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
tia everyone.
August 2nd, 2004 at 1:10 pm
some good questions.
1. As mute is strictly a personal site I don't think I worry too much about a 'target' resolution, the desired image dimensions set the size of the site.
2. I restrict my images to 690 wide or 600 high, depending on their orientation. If I post an extraordinarily sized image, like a panorama, I will link it to a larger version. The comments and description are below the image and I think people are willing to scroll for that, the important thing is to get as much of the image upfront as possible.
3. No, I hope that the 600 height will be viewable by most people comfortably, even if 800x600 users have to scroll a little. I do think the height of images should be kept restrained though. I have a resolution of 1600x1200 and sometimes I visit sites where I have to scroll to see the whole of an image, I can't imagine users with 800x600 or 1024x768 enjoy those.
4. Nope.
5. no, and people should consider that many people don't browse with their windows maximised. A user's resolution is only the potential space available.
6. I think that's a factor for some people though I hadn't really thought about it before. Sometimes you see blogs with watermarks on the images.
August 2nd, 2004 at 1:18 pm
1. 1024x768 bare minimum. I figure there's a higher ratio of higher resolution browsers among those who look at photo sites
2. i try to keep it minimal: just pictures, small text links
3. nope
4. nope
5. nope
6. not really. unless i was posting really really big it doesn't feel like an issue to me.
August 2nd, 2004 at 1:40 pm
1. 1024x768, although it works ok in 800x600 and in link viewers since i keep the sides clear.
2. yes, they are 640 pixels wide or tall depending on orientation. i started with 480 pixels, but found that many details were missing so bumped them up a notch.
3. lately yes, but not always.
4. very, very, rarely.
5. no, but always in mozilla firefox which offers a larger browser viewing size in general.
6. no. those slimy, dirty, rotten, thiefs will steal any size and will be dealt with as the occasion arises.
August 2nd, 2004 at 2:58 pm
1. 800x600 and above
2. Yes
3. No, I have a fixed horizontal limit of 500px, the vertical size can be anything.
4. Nope.
5. Nope.
6. Not really.
August 2nd, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Aside from your questions, 37% is rather a big minority. If you were running your site like a business, I doubt you'd be interested in letting 37% walk away!
1. I designed mine for a minimum 800x600, but it looks better at higher resolution.
2. My pics are no larger than 600 wide, 450 horizontal, 99% of the time. It looks big even on high res.
3. Yes.
4. I do sometimes to see how it looks at lower resolution, but not to make it look 'bigger.' I do sometimes reduce the resolution to make small print bigger.
5. Generally no: I have a left pane of bookmarks open. But what's left allows room for my 600 wide images.
6. No.
Another issue which you might think about is that with larger images (dimensions) you might be tempted to post bigger files (in terms of K). But at 600x450 I can generally post an image under 70K with very little loss. This makes the page load more quickly -- here in the US the majority is not on broadband, and that matters.
August 2nd, 2004 at 4:22 pm
I designed for 1024x768, but I think it's nearly usable at 800x600. But my photos are pretty small -- I restricted more to save on bandwidth and storage space than for screen space or content stealers.
August 2nd, 2004 at 4:40 pm
1. 800x600
2. 700px width for landscape mode; 650px width for portrait. Height is not an issue.
3. Nope
4. Nada
5. Not an issue. I run my blog on a 15 in. Titanium PowerBook usually (but not always) attached to a 23 in. Apple Cinema HD display.
6. Not really... yet.
August 2nd, 2004 at 5:43 pm
1. 1024x768 because everyone I know is pretty much at that level or should be.
2. Currently my site is based around a 8.25 inch picture width. I want to post bigger pictures as well as multiple pictures at one time. Also I want to be able to post landscape and portrait without it breaking my design. I'm redesigning my site so that i don't have to anymore.
3. yes and that bothers me as I've had to forgo posting some images or I'd have to crop them to fit so that's why I'm redesigning my site.
4. No, why would I do that? That seems like a pain. I might make the font bigger if someone has set it to like 8px or something. I have wiped out the digital magnafying glass... but let's just say... er uh.. .that wasn't a photoblog I was looking at ;).
5. Nah, I use Firefox and I've got it set so that the browser itself takes up very little space.
6. No but I have thougth about that. If I have a really good picture I usually save it with a lower quality which would make it unusable for alot of reproduction purposes ... I hope.
August 2nd, 2004 at 6:15 pm
This may sound selfish, but I really don't care what my own blog looks like at other resolutions. In one sense I'm only really doing it for myself, so I only really care if it looks good on my own computer. I happen to use 1024x768 or higher (I use 1280x1024 at work), so as long as my blog looks good at those resolutions, I'm good.
But I think this approach isn't necessarily a bad thing, since if you make your own site the way you want it to look, and you feel like you have good instincts for the web, then your site will most likely appeal to others as well.
I did originally start out with a different, more "designy" site, but I quickly changed it to a much more minimalist one. I had more colours and web graphics on each page and I found they distracted from the photos themselves.
August 2nd, 2004 at 8:12 pm
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
-> My first design and the photos for it were 800x600, but soon I realized, that the images were to small, so I decided to switch to 1024x786.
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
-> Yes. I found out, that in a normal, maximised 786 high screen window, I have a bit above 600 pixels of free space in the browser, so my images have a longer dimension of 600 pixels (plus border). This is even reasonable for 800x600 when browsing in fullscreen.
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
-> No, the images are as they are and I won't allow my design to narrow my way to photograph.
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
-> No. Too stressy.
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
-> No.
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
. But aside from that, no. I still have this real silly idea of humans being good people. I know, I'm crazy.
-> Yes, I wont post in full 3/6/21 megapixels
August 2nd, 2004 at 9:55 pm
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
I try to design it for 800 x 600 so you atleast don't have to side scroll. Most of my photos are between 700 to 500 px in wide. Veritcal photos different though. Looking though my logs though most are 1024 x 768 or higher so it is becoming a mute point for me.
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
Nope
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
Nope
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
Only when designing my site. I am mostly concerned with hort aspect of the design but on some designs I try to fit the whole site into 570 - 600 px.
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
Nope but I as run at 1280 x 1024 though.
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
Nope not really. I usually save in a medium or slightly lower quality then the orginal resized photo.
August 3rd, 2004 at 2:24 am
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
800x600 and above.
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
I usually use 550px for the longer side, but can go up to 700px if the image contains a lot of detail.
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
Nope.
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
Nope.
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
Sometimes. I agree with you: full screen is more visually appealing.
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
Not really. There's nothing much you can do if someone is bent on stealing your pictures, anyway.
August 3rd, 2004 at 4:15 am
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
I think when I designed it a year ago, that I designed it for 1024x768. But I know that it works quite well in 800x600 aswell, if the size of my photos isn't bigger than about 700 in width. Don't know in height.
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
Yes. I try not too post photos that are larger than 700 in width. Still don't know in height. Heh.
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
Not really. I don't like to restrict myself. If I like on of my photos I want to post it no matter what.
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
No, I've never done that.
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
I browse in.. uh, normal mode.
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
No.
August 3rd, 2004 at 12:02 pm
1. 1024x768. It used to be 800x600 but most of my viewers used 1024x768 or higher (I don't get stats on that anymore so I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think at least as many had higher as had lower). 1024x768 is still a fairly low resolution as screens go. I suspect most computers can handle it, even older ones and laptops (whether people know how to change it is another thing), so I figure it's a happy medium.
I usually design for the lowest common denominator but too-small photos are also annoying at high resolutions which a fair sized chunk of my viewers have. Since it isn't a commercial site, I decided to design for me.
2) 720 x 540. I like this size on other blogs and the images themselves are still viewable at 800x600. It used to be smaller with bigger popups but popups get in the way of browsing and I couldn't seem my own pictures at 1400x1050.
3. Somewhat but it isn't a big concern.
4. No, I use the Firefox 'zoom image' extension. Also makes too-big images smaller.
5: No.
6: Not anmymore. As I said, I couldn't see my own pictures.
August 3rd, 2004 at 3:55 pm
Interesting range of responses...
1. what screen resolution did you design your photoblog for?
I started by deciding on a maximum image width (560 pixels) and then went from there (instead of a fixed screen resolution, though the two are obviously linked). I felt the image size was a good tradeoff between common screen resolutions, bandwidth and server space. At that point I started placing elements around the photo, trying to keep them as minimal and as small as possible.
2. do you restrict your image size for your page/site design (logo/comments/thumbnails)?
The site is designed around the photo, not the other way around. So I'd say no. If my image size changed, the site design probably wouldn't change noticeably.
3. do you prioritise posting horizonal shots more than vertical for screen dimension reasons?
Not at all, though I realize how frustrating it can be to view the vertical shots. My vertical shots tend to be 560x747 - requiring scrolling even on most 1024x768 monitors. Still, that's the size I want it and if they got smaller I'd be disappointed.
4. do you ever reduce your screen resolution to see an image/site bigger?
Never.
5. do you browse in full screen mode?
Rarely, if ever.
6. do you restrict your image size for copyright violation fears?
Nope. There's little I can do about it.
August 4th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Thanks again to everyone for their opinions on my queries.
I've found the comments very interesting and a definate help for me in my own site redesign. Most clear is how the majority of people don't let their site design compromise their photos, which is what my own blog suffers from most.
I've put together the stats on the 15 responces, thus far, to my post.
Incidentally, browser stats for 1024x768 and 800x600 resolution popularity are almost identical to the stats for the resolution people design their photoblog for.
1. screen resolution:
non applicable: 3 (20%)
1024x768: 7 (47%)
800x600: 5 (33%)
2. image size restriction for other page elements:
yes: 11 (73%)
no: 4 (27%)
3. landscape priority over portrait
yes: 4 (27%)
no: 11 (73%)
4. screen resolution reduction for a site u like:
yes: 2 (very rarely) (13%)
no: 11 (73%)
not answered: 2 (13%)
5. use full screen mode?
yes: 2 (1 rarely) (13%)
no: 11 (73%)
not applicable/not answered: 2 (13%)
6. image size restriction for copyright reasons:
no: 14 (93%)
not answered: 1 (7%)
August 4th, 2004 at 10:17 am
Thanks for tallying those up Darragh. That really helps to get a good overview of the discussion.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
1. I like to go as big as my monitor will let me 1280x1024
2. Yes but only sometimes, it depends on the surrounding content
3. No
4. No, but i do use the windows zoom level magnifier.
5. No.
6. Never even crossed my mind until now!
February 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
how di I set my picture size to 800x600