Re: Screen-sized Web Pages?

[Matt Ion <soundy -at- NEXTLEVEL -dot- COM>]

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:00:17 +0200, Shmuel Ben-Artzi wrote:

>Agreed. Most knowledgeable sources that I've run across on Web site design
>suggest creating JPG and interlaced GIF files to be read at 640x480x256.
>Many users whose monitors are capable of higher resolutions regularly use
>this setting anyway. And that means that 256 should be the total number of
>colors on the page, not just in each individual photo or graphic.

Actually, my point on color depth was more to do with the size of the
image file (a 16.7m color image, at 24-bit, is mathematically three
times larger than the same image converted to 256 color/8-bit depth (of
course, this varies depending on actual colors used, compression
formats used, and so on, but that's for another time).

It should be noted that just because a monitor CAN support higher
resolutions, doesn't mean that's comfortable for the user.  Many of our
clients are older people with the first tinges of failing eyesight, and
tend not only to stick with 640x480, but to use somewhat massive screen
fonts as well.  1024x768, while fine with my own 20/20 vision and a
decent dot-pitch, was pretty small on a 14" monitor (it's much better
on a 15" :)

Video card memory is a factor as well.  This page may "look best at
800x600" but if I have a 512k video card, I'm limited to 16 colors at
that resolution or above, so it becomes a toss-up between more real
estate and more colors.


 Your friend and mine,
 Matt
 <insert standard disclaimer here>
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Living in the limelight, the universal dream, for those who wish to seem
 Those who wish to be, must put aside the alienation
 Get on with the fascination, the real relation
 The underlying theme...
                                        - Rush, "Limelight"