Retire the 800 Table Rule - Page 2

DaveE · 2006-09-15, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, Dave :-))

I personally think that if a person can't make a site look decent at 800 (because there's very little actual "content" on a typical free site), then increasing it to 1024 (or 1000) may just have the effect of spreading the rubbish around and about the screen a little more.

That said, show us one of your "nicer" 1000 wide designs :-)

As soon as I make my first one you will see it.
I plan on making 100 free sites but I wanted to establish what width they should be first. When I make them it will be a large task so I wanted to make something that would look good for the future as much as now.

Mr. Blue · 2006-09-15, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveE

I feel 1000 wide will increase my sales and by the sounds of it will not restrict acceptance of my new free sites to the majority of link sites. And I believe if we all start doing this then the last few link sites will change their rules to match the demand for more detail.

The problem is people tend to focus on what amounts to minutia. Let me give you an example...Awhile back someone complained viciously about TGP rules (I've also seen the same about LL rules) and since I happen to review for a few TGPs, I was familiar with their galleries. They ranted about minutia little rules instead of the fact that they just didn't know how to build an effective gallery. Their thumbs sucked, their design sucked, their sales pitch sucked, and they were using overused content. Basically it comes down to, don't blame the dressing when it's the salad.

Now, I'm not saying you're this type of person, and I'm sure you do great designs, but from personal experience it's always been simple clean designs that focus in on the content that makes me the most sales. 800px or 1000px...if you're not making sales at 800px the extra 200px ain't gonna help you any.

Also, it's the factor of working in the system and not working outside the system. Rules will change as the time changes, but instead of butting your head against a brick wall it's just better to perfect your designs for what's most widely accepted by all LL, etc.

Jim · 2006-09-15, 05:45 AM

I have always been had the school of thought that you design for the least common denominator. Using percentages works much better than by the amount of pixels for everyone.

Until, 800 wide users are down to 0, stick with it. Most people that buy memberships to pay sites really don't know a lot about the internets

So, many of them are probably still using dial up and a 15" monitor.

backoffbitch · 2006-09-16, 01:01 AM

Personally I find that people designing freesites that are width scalable are generally designing sites that look like shit. Not all do though, some scale nicely and still look good but a majority of scalable freesite designs have elements spread out way too thin and everything looks empty to me. Like they were designed in 1995.

As for general design that incorporates graphical headers, I think 770px wide is the way to go. You cant scale a jpg or a gif. it just doesn't work that way. I've used layering and css to make elements scalable in graphical headers but it's still spread too weird and doesn't work when it's a centered design. To allow the body of the page to scale and the header to sit still is doable. Just depends on how you build your header. Left or right justify the header and allow it to scale over a background image that suits it, and you're good to go.

Overall though, 770px wide is perfect, it's compact, to the point, everything is easy to access without much effort on anyone's part and it keeps banner happy designers in check... well.. for the most part. It is a bit limiting on placement of elements though. Personally I'm starting to get damn tired of the simple middle single column or one column on the side design. More than that and you lose valuable real estate. So I use CSS a lot now to put columns where they fit nicely and control text wrapping to work around it. It works well for scalable designs too but for my bitching-galleries blog I went back to 800x600 to keep things simple and controllable when it comes to images and such.

jayeff · 2006-09-16, 08:44 AM

As we should, we take people seriously who come to the boards looking for ways to enhance their businesses by one or two points. So how can we even entertain the suggestion that we do something to alienate 15% of our potential customers?

That apart, many people using higher resolutions and bigger screens open multiple windows, rather than using the whole screen for just one. Big-screen or not, there is also a maximum line-width with which people are most comfortable. That applies primarily to text, but even on highly graphical sites we still want surfers to focus on enter buttons, specific text, etc, so it cannot make sense to overwhelm those hot-spots.

In short, design for 770-780 pixels wide. It is the usable width of 800x600 screens (with the most common chroming) and a comfortable width at higher resolutions. By all means ensure that your design is at its best at 1024, since that is currently the most common size, but it should not degrade badly, ideally not at all, at lower or higher values.

Anway that is only part of the picture (no pun intended). A lot of visitors have the option, whether you like it or not, to re-scale your text with a simple click of their mouse rollers. Instead of ignoring that, since the results can be horrible if not planned, cater for that possibility and give all your visitors a choice to see your site(s) as they prefer. Sure you will have problems with animated gifs and poor-quality graphics, but otherwise there is nothing to prevent graphics, as well as text, being scalable.

I really don't understand those who use huge screens and ultra-high resolutions for design: this is business, not a competition to see who scores the most geek-cool points. If you must design for only one group of visitors, at least make it the largest group: 19 inches at 1024.

iMan · 2006-09-16, 02:55 PM

I think everyone should make sites that are at a MINIMUM 1600 wide

Although I of course agree that no one should be alienated, I'm not sure that a little side scrolling will infuriate the 800x600 people so much that they will immediately close their window and go elsewhere... or write a letter or something.

It's not very difficult to stick to the 800 rule, but it would be nice to have some wiggle room... but with all LL rules out there threatening to hurl my ass to their blacklist every other sentence, if it says max 800 wide, I'm taking it literarily.
On the other hand, if it would say max 1024, that doesn't mean that all my tables will always be fixed at that big size.

It would be nice to know a bit more about this statistics though.
I mean, I've read many posts where traffic from certain geographic locations is unwanted. Could there be something similar with this?
Maybe 98% of those 16% is a group of people who will, for whatever reason, probably never ever pay for porn..
(Or maybe they're actually the group of folks who pay for 90% of all memberships online

)

Anyone know about a more detailed study in this area?

DaveE · 2006-09-16, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iMan

I think everyone should make sites that are at a MINIMUM 1600 wide

It would be nice to know a bit more about this statistics though.
Maybe 98% of those 16% is a group of people who will, for whatever reason, probably never ever pay for porn..
(Or maybe they're actually the group of folks who pay for 90% of all memberships online

)

Anyone know about a more detailed study in this area?

I was thinking along the same lines as far as the stats. Would be nice to know the size stats for members of adult paysites.

But for now as far as size goes I have to agree with Jim.

JohnWebcams.com · 2006-09-19, 09:38 AM

I think the design should be secondary to the porn. In my experience the more amateur (but still organized) a page works the better it converts. I think most surfers are at the lower end of the IQ range so it's best to make things dumby proof and EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

This includes scrolling -- some might not even know how to scroll from side to side, some can barely operate a mouse

16% of the market is very huge, and you're also assuming that people will view your site at full screen. What if they don't want to?

emmanuelle · 2006-09-19, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnWebcams.com

I think most surfers are at the lower end of the IQ range so it's best to make things dumby proof and EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

This includes scrolling -- some might not even know how to scroll from side to side, some can barely operate a mouse

Are you sure that you really want to publicly bash (and underestimate) the people who put food on your table?

In my experience, it's the people who don't appreciate & value their customers that tend to fail in most businesses.

2006-09-16, 01:01 AM	#4
backoffbitch No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Brunswick Posts: 234	Personally I find that people designing freesites that are width scalable are generally designing sites that look like shit. Not all do though, some scale nicely and still look good but a majority of scalable freesite designs have elements spread out way too thin and everything looks empty to me. Like they were designed in 1995. As for general design that incorporates graphical headers, I think 770px wide is the way to go. You cant scale a jpg or a gif. it just doesn't work that way. I've used layering and css to make elements scalable in graphical headers but it's still spread too weird and doesn't work when it's a centered design. To allow the body of the page to scale and the header to sit still is doable. Just depends on how you build your header. Left or right justify the header and allow it to scale over a background image that suits it, and you're good to go. Overall though, 770px wide is perfect, it's compact, to the point, everything is easy to access without much effort on anyone's part and it keeps banner happy designers in check... well.. for the most part. It is a bit limiting on placement of elements though. Personally I'm starting to get damn tired of the simple middle single column or one column on the side design. More than that and you lose valuable real estate. So I use CSS a lot now to put columns where they fit nicely and control text wrapping to work around it. It works well for scalable designs too but for my bitching-galleries blog I went back to 800x600 to keep things simple and controllable when it comes to images and such. __________________ I'm hot behaving badly.

2006-09-16, 02:55 PM	#6
iMan Lord help me, I'm just not that bright Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 101	I think everyone should make sites that are at a MINIMUM 1600 wide Although I of course agree that no one should be alienated, I'm not sure that a little side scrolling will infuriate the 800x600 people so much that they will immediately close their window and go elsewhere... or write a letter or something. It's not very difficult to stick to the 800 rule, but it would be nice to have some wiggle room... but with all LL rules out there threatening to hurl my ass to their blacklist every other sentence, if it says max 800 wide, I'm taking it literarily. On the other hand, if it would say max 1024, that doesn't mean that all my tables will always be fixed at that big size. It would be nice to know a bit more about this statistics though. I mean, I've read many posts where traffic from certain geographic locations is unwanted. Could there be something similar with this? Maybe 98% of those 16% is a group of people who will, for whatever reason, probably never ever pay for porn.. (Or maybe they're actually the group of folks who pay for 90% of all memberships online ) Anyone know about a more detailed study in this area? __________________

2006-09-19, 09:38 AM	#8
JohnWebcams.com A woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you'd step over your own mother just to get one! Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 50	I think the design should be secondary to the porn. In my experience the more amateur (but still organized) a page works the better it converts. I think most surfers are at the lower end of the IQ range so it's best to make things dumby proof and EXTREMELY SIMPLE. This includes scrolling -- some might not even know how to scroll from side to side, some can barely operate a mouse 16% of the market is very huge, and you're also assuming that people will view your site at full screen. What if they don't want to? __________________ $42+ PPS / ICQ: 476-111

2006-09-15, 05:45 AM	#3
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	I have always been had the school of thought that you design for the least common denominator. Using percentages works much better than by the amount of pixels for everyone. Until, 800 wide users are down to 0, stick with it. Most people that buy memberships to pay sites really don't know a lot about the internets So, many of them are probably still using dial up and a 15" monitor.

2006-09-16, 08:44 AM	#5
jayeff Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 95	As we should, we take people seriously who come to the boards looking for ways to enhance their businesses by one or two points. So how can we even entertain the suggestion that we do something to alienate 15% of our potential customers? That apart, many people using higher resolutions and bigger screens open multiple windows, rather than using the whole screen for just one. Big-screen or not, there is also a maximum line-width with which people are most comfortable. That applies primarily to text, but even on highly graphical sites we still want surfers to focus on enter buttons, specific text, etc, so it cannot make sense to overwhelm those hot-spots. In short, design for 770-780 pixels wide. It is the usable width of 800x600 screens (with the most common chroming) and a comfortable width at higher resolutions. By all means ensure that your design is at its best at 1024, since that is currently the most common size, but it should not degrade badly, ideally not at all, at lower or higher values. Anway that is only part of the picture (no pun intended). A lot of visitors have the option, whether you like it or not, to re-scale your text with a simple click of their mouse rollers. Instead of ignoring that, since the results can be horrible if not planned, cater for that possibility and give all your visitors a choice to see your site(s) as they prefer. Sure you will have problems with animated gifs and poor-quality graphics, but otherwise there is nothing to prevent graphics, as well as text, being scalable. I really don't understand those who use huge screens and ultra-high resolutions for design: this is business, not a competition to see who scores the most geek-cool points. If you must design for only one group of visitors, at least make it the largest group: 19 inches at 1024.