?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Web designers suck. - brad's life — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Web designers suck. [Feb. 4th, 2001|05:19 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
Why do people put "Best viewed at 1024x768" on their web sites?

1) You shouldn't design a website for a certain browser, certain operating system, or certain monitor size. It should work everywhere.

2) Even if you do target one resolution, what good does telling the users what resolution looks best accomplish? If they're below that, it's probably because their monitor or video card sucks... you don't need to tell them your website was designed for a higher resolution. Trust me, they already know from the scrollbars all over the place. (did you really need to use frames? no, you didn't.) Nobody lowers their resolution for the fun of it. And, if they're above that resolution, it's pretty silly showing that message isn't it? I mean, personally I think 1600x1200 looks better than 1024x768 ... should I lower my resolution to look at this person's shitty site?

Same with color depth.

I hate stupid web designers.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: belladonna
2001-02-04 05:30 pm (UTC)

may i just say...

Brilliant! Well put!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mrbad
2001-02-04 05:51 pm (UTC)

whats best ?

Ok, so whats the solution ?
Say for example you're running 1600x1200, a dual pentium III and a cable modem.
Who do you design for ?
If you design for the LCD "lowest common denominator" you don't really enjoy the possibilities of your own site. [like don't bother throwing in a 3 meg mpeg video clip]
Just bought a 3 mega-pixels camera. Do you post 200x200 rez, 36kb's jpegs just to make everyone happy ?
<>
This is a problem that has been bothering me for a while now and I don't have the solution so how does one "make it work everywhere ?" Or should we even bother ???
thks
MrBad

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 05:55 pm (UTC)

Re: whats best ?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: niko
2001-02-04 10:32 pm (UTC)

Re: whats best ?

or, try using an image gallery script that will do auto-resizing for you.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: opalcat
2001-02-05 05:02 am (UTC)

Re: whats best ?

::::quivering with excitement::::


Ohhhhhhhhh.... ooooooooooooOOOOoooohhhhhh.... ::::frantically downloading and installing::::
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: celiacam
2001-02-04 05:54 pm (UTC)

uh oh..

Because of my insecurities and paranoia, I *know* you *MUST* be talking about me. Stupid web designer? How 'bout just 'uninformed'? A 'novice'?
I promise to try and do better. I mean it. I promise.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 05:56 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

No, it wasn't you. :-)

Trust me, tons of people do this.

I just checked out your website now... FOUR BANNER ADS!!! Oh my.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: celiacam
2001-02-04 06:06 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

:FOUR BANNER ADS!!! Oh my.:

declining economy and 50k worth of tuition loans call for desperate measures.
Thanks! I still think LiveJournal is the best thing since BBS's (remember them- before the internet?)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 06:08 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

yeah... BBS's (BBSes?) ruled.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: celiacam
2001-02-04 06:11 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

Yikes. Remind me to use spellerchecker, grammerchecker, and asswipe checker before I send you anything again.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 06:13 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

No, I don't know the spelling myself ... hence the question mark.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: celiacam
2001-02-04 06:20 pm (UTC)

Re: uh oh..

I'm pretty sure your spelling is correct! :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: d4b
2001-02-04 07:19 pm (UTC)

Re: asswipe checker

Wonder where one actually finds those? ;-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: apriljoy
2001-02-04 06:33 pm (UTC)
I'll have to agree with your rant. As a webdesigner I just do it and not state who it's for. I think the majority of the sites I design are 800x600, but only because I don't like to surf with my windows maximized.

When looking for inspiration and finding a cool design I will take the time to crack open Netscape to view it there. If it looks similar then I take note. Even though I use IE, it doesn't mean I have to subject everyone to it.

*sarcasm*
I especially love the websites that tell you what fonts you should have installed and what size font you should have it set to. Those are the best.
*/sarcasm*
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 06:37 pm (UTC)
I love your userpics. :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: apriljoy
2001-02-04 06:39 pm (UTC)

Re:

Thanks :)
*blush*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: visions
2001-02-04 06:43 pm (UTC)
you dont ever lower your resolution, just resize your window if you are at a higher resolution. :-P
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2001-02-04 08:59 pm (UTC)

Re:

well, yeah.... that's the point. we don't need to be told what resolution to set our monitor out. that's why we bought 19" and 21" monitors in the first place... so we could look at more than one thing at a time.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: christowang
2001-02-04 06:53 pm (UTC)
Yeah, this is a topic gone over all the time at work.

You don't know how many times others in the office didn't think about this, and one of our sale reps go and show a client and web site and it breaks miserable. How are you suppose to defend that?

Not only resolutions, but someone people NEVER test cross browser compatibilities. Dumb dumb dumb!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dweezil
2001-02-04 07:30 pm (UTC)
Amen. Design for usability, unless your point is to be "bleeding edge". I hate sites that are designed for a certain browser, or platform. Since I design primarily business to business sites I have designed for practicality. Don't scoff at designing for least common denominator. Those people spend money on things other than their computer. Think about it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brynna
2001-02-04 07:35 pm (UTC)

i agree completly...

arrogance among web designers drives me nuts. if you can't code for a low end of 800x600 (i don't usually work at 600x400...) - and make it work in at least NS & IE - and give options to go to a lower resolution site if you're using flash or lots of javascript - you shouldn't be coding in the first place. people at my office never cross-browser test - I had to fix 4 sites on friday that were broken in NS. mostly missing closing table tags. people can be so stupid.

~ B
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: skeets
2001-02-04 10:54 pm (UTC)

Re: i agree completly...

I agree very much, and cross-browser issues are the main reason why I've stuck with Netscrape for as long as I have. Things like table tags that aren't closed tick me off bigs, and whenever I design for Netscape, it works fine in IE. But when I design with IE... THEN there are problems ahoy when I do my browser check. :p
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: d4b
2001-02-05 08:06 pm (UTC)

You *can* make a difference!

Those who agree with Brad can promote the Viewable With Any Browser campaign on your own websites.
(Reply) (Thread)