chrometweaks.org

Anybody know a iPage web hosting provider that uses TSS servers?

Click Here To View All Answers...


Got a question... Anybody know a iPage web hosting provider that uses TSS servers? Hoping for any answer. My other question... Evening,.

I am in the process of designing an online newsletter/website called "The Daily Dork" and I am trying to find some opinions on page width. I will be basically emailing an HTML newsletter, as content changes, that is just a right-click, view source, copy and paste act. I was orgainally designing it with a 770 width but I am now reconsidering that due to the fact that I will be emailing the index file and I am concerned about the look when viewed through a email..

Thanks!.

James.

DataDork..

Comments (10)

Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the right answer to your question. I'll do some research and get back to you if I find an useful answer. You should email the people at iPage as they probably know..

Comment #1

Dont forget that people do have to view these emails thru "email"..

I use juno and the email gets put into iframe with my email menu on the left. I agree with KW jams. 800 x 600 is too big to fit in alot of emails...

Comment #2

I am prepared to agree on the email side of things. This isn't really my field of expertise. However when it come down to viewing sites in a web page then it is about time that the afore mentioned lower than 800*600 be dropped from any developers considerations..

Why?.

94% of users view at 800*600 or above. Anyone who views at a lower res is doing so on archaic hardware. Then it is safe to assume that this hardware in the most part will not run 4th generation browsers or better. They will not run CSS and a whole bunch of other applications. To the point, if we are going to write pages with archaic screen res's in mind... then you have to write sites that won't take background images, tables, flash movies, asp, php and on and on...

It's about standards. I hate 800*600 and prefer to write at a higher res, but I will write at 800*600. Only because that it is considered the lowest common denominator (like it or not, it is). The web needs more of a move to a common goal and unification. XHTML 1.0 is the proof in the pudding.

If you try to do this at 640*480 you would end up with a live space of about 590 pixles in width. Thats right.

590.

Pixels. How do you design an image with text in for something like that and expect a viewer to read it when viewing at 1200px plus width for example. By design at 590 width you think you are helping out such a tiny minority but in fact you are makeing viewing for high end users (a far larger amount of browsers than the extreme low end) a chore and bad experiance..

You are only making your life harder and doing no-1 any favours by sticking around on sites for such low res's. You might as well decide to make sure that your iPage site is viewable on web-tv's..

640*480 is laughable to say the least when planning a web page. Why not make sure all your pages are HTML 1.0 compliant to be on the safe side...

Comment #3

The WPFTA iPage site probably is..

The reason why is that most of the visitors there are of the WWII generation and operating older equipment and yes, possibly even Web TV..

I agree that that sites should be designed for latest bells and whistles and continue to evolve..

The reference I used for 640x480 was from an old book I use, so it is easy to see how things have evolved already, since it was printed in 1997...

Comment #4

First, thanks for the replies. After reading the posts and looking around I have decided to fix width(left) @ 770, maybe a tad less..

If anyone is interested, the site/newletter is "The Daily Dork" located here.

Http://www.thedailydork.com..

Is is 100% script generated based on 4 templates, ok maybe 5. I am looking to make it as close to a newspaper style format as possible. Any tips/ideas/comments are always welcome..

Thanks again....

James.

DataDork.

Http://www.datadork.com..

Comment #5

Glad we could help, however....

Hope you read what I posted. If you are planning to develop at 800 width, the lowest space you get to play with is 751 pixels. Have a read of the long post again. There is no point in taking 10 pixels from the 800 to accomadate browser views if you don't consider the different browsers and hardware. Develop at a live space of 751, 750 to make things easier..

I hasten to add that is for web pages and not email (which I know nothing of... yet)...

Comment #6

Would you consider using a liquid layout, meaning that instead of defining in pixels and hold the chance of the user having to scroll left or right use a % so the contect would stretch and shrink to the users screen...

Comment #7

You have to consider that images are done in pixels. And then cant be fluid. It is ok for text but I feel it cant be done lower than 800 width. If anything for the reason that high end users lose out if you create images in low end design..

800*600 is fine...

Comment #8

I always try to keep my main design below 550x450. I can add inline frames inside of that with scrolling. I just don't like things that are too big...

Comment #9

Just because pictures are done in pixels it doesnt mean that you cant have the page layout set in %. It will expand to fit any screen res, where a clearly defined layout wont, a surfer will have to scroll left and right, which is one of the sins of web design unless you are doing a slide show..

The layout for this iPage site is defined through % as well as pixels and works well for me. In a high end graphic (with good use of clear gif's) iPage site such as the company I work for it is essential to have % as well as pixels..

Http://www.btopenworld.com/default.

Unless you can say 100% that a user will have a screen set up and optimized for your iPage site then it is best to have a % width instead of a pixel..

Try this thread at anothre iPage site that I visit alot as well.

Http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/2849.htm..

Comment #10

You suggest that surfers will have to scroll left to right to view a page designed at 800*600. That simply is not the case for the 94% (and growing) number of web users..

You don't have to be sure that 100% of your viewers will be able to view at 800*600. That's like saying lets not switch to a fully intergrated eletrical public transport railway system as some of our customers might still want to use steam trains. I'm sorry, but unless your writeing a specialist iPage site or a imageless iPage site then I can not think of a single sensible reason for not aiming at a base resolution of 800*600px..

I am fully aware and adept at the principles of dynamic page creation using percentages over pixels. This does not back-up your argument in the slightest as far as I am concerned. Like I said in my previous post, text with very little in terms of images is fine. However what I was trying to get at was the basis of creating images and not being able to view them correctly because you designed them for, to put it bluntly, silly silly screen dimensions..

Lets say you create an image 100 pixels wide with text in it, set at 12pt (a commonly used font size). It could be used as a button for example. Then lets say this image is to be viewed on a generic 15 inch monitor to level the playing field. The last faction to consider is that the image was designed to be viewed at a screen res of 640*480..

A note about pt (points). Points are the standard typographical unit of measurement. So much so you decide how large your font in MS word is by pt's. They are used with great affect in Html 4.01, XHTML, CSS 1 and soon CSS 2. Why? Because one of the advantages of setting text in pt's is that you can plan exactly how a page looks when a page is printed. Online application forms, office paper work etc.

Points were created before we all went to mm's and cm's. I digress... so text set at 12 pt would be exactly 12/72 of an inch or 1/6 of an inch (about 4.2mm).

Once your 15" monitor goes to any higher res your pt designed graphic gets smaller and smaller. This cannot be adjusted by %'s. It is good to consider all users when createing web pages. However, your images can become pointless to those who use higher end technology. Especially once your 15" monitor hits 1024*768 for example. 15" monitors are far from the norm now, 17" 19" and even 22" are becoming more and more common.

I'm sure you know that Photoshop uses pt's to create it's text..

What is the point of using $800 dollar software like photoshop if you design for these res's either. If a monitor can only view at 640*480 then the chances are that these screens will only display 256 colours anyway and not 16 or 32 bit graphics..

Look at the stats. 6% of users view at less than 800*600, 51% at 800*600. So this means that 43% of users view at the high end of res..

Why write a iPage site for 6% and not take into consideration the other end of the scale, the other 43%. Yes I know you said use dynamic tables etc with %'s but I have tried to demonstrate that this doesn't work when takeing into consideration images..

You have given 3 or 4 examples of sites that use 640*480 as the starting point for res. If I had the time I could find you 20,000 sites that don't for every single one you know of..

Come on, I can't believe that so many other users of this forum don't put there point across as I am sure most of you design at 800*600. Where are the comments?.

In fact I am going to post a poll to see what everyone else thinks. See new thread..

Thats enough for now.....

Comment #11


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.