The Human Factors article on monitor resolution has stirred up some fun debate:
this kinda sticks out — “A website is best when it is designed for a monitor resolution that matches the monitor resolution of the majority of your users. This provides a full-screen layout for those who desire to use the full width of their monitor for web pages.”
~ Error #1 “A website is best when it is designed for a monitor resolution” — a web site is best when it is designed for what you *do* there
~ Error #2 “the monitor resolution of the majority of your users” — so, by this logic it’s safe not to code for the blind?
~ Error #3 “This provides a full-screen layout” — in other words, they haven’t quite mastered the liquid layout concept yet
~ Error #4 “for those who desire to use the full width of their monitor for web pages.” — which naturally includes all the clever people at human factors
and aardvark wrote
Dr. Bob Bailey (the report’s author) and I have exchanged a few emails about the report, primarily to address his assertion that my article states “…that as monitors size get larger, offering larger viewable browsing areas, users tend to concurrently open more pages.” This is not at all what my article states. In fact, my article tries to avoid drawing any conclusions, and simply shows the numbers. Now, the numbers suggest that people will surf full- screen up to 800×600, and that viewable window size is never the same as available screen real estate. The chart in the WebReview article pretty much shows it all. Dr. Bailey seems to understand my points, but I don’t know if he’ll be updating the report.
Other issues I had included his lack of understanding of liquid layouts, and even the comment, “To make it even more difficult, any serious discussion of monitor resolution also should include a discussion of monitor size.” Monitor size is not a factor. Window size and screen resolution are the two factors.
And nobody even touched the bit-depth data I gathered…