My website

[luisgriveratorres]

Here is the link for my website. If your resolution is higher than 1024x768 they may seem small. Leave a feedback.

www.knlarts.com

[Mathiau]

I am @ 1024 x 768 on a 15" laptop and your text is small, may want toincrease that a little more.

the top menu is nice with the 2 animals on top.

the flash gallery is nice but your images are far too small to really see or enjoy.

[luisgriveratorres]

Thanks, seems that I need to work on that.

[pup]

well, i just set up a porta... here it is ... check it out let me know...

http://www.wakefuldreaming.com/simpleviewer/images/album/index.html

[luisgriveratorres]

I like that concept. Can you tell me what the resolution for those pictures is. Do you think that mine look to small?

[Titus213]

Your pictures are WAY TO SMALL. You can safely go probably 4x larger.

[SonyaL]

I would change my font size to medium.
The site looks good otherwise.

Sonya

[hdcolumbus]

With dual-monitors running 1200x1600 screen resolution, the text is extremely small (as mentioned) and your photos are about the size of my thumbnail.

[transcend]

With dual-monitors running 1200x1600 screen resolution, the text is extremely small (as mentioned) and your photos are about the size of my thumbnail.

You design a site for the majority, not the minority.

I'm at 1280x854 and 1600x1058. The pictures are fine. 4x larger is absurd.

[jbkalla]

I think it's safe to say that the majority of users will be using 1024x768. It would be safe to design your website for that. Nobody uses 800x600 anymore, so don't worry about what old html texts might tell you.

[transcend]

I think it's safe to say that the majority of users will be using 1024x768. It would be safe to design your website for that. Nobody uses 800x600 anymore, so don't worry about what old html texts might tell you.

I can tell you that, surprisingly enough, many people still do use 800x600. Almost all designers still design with this size in mind. Some sites scale up using a liquid layout, but rest assures the site is designed at 8x6 first.

[hdcolumbus]

You design a site for the majority, not the minority.

I'm at 1280x854 and 1600x1058. The pictures are fine. 4x larger is absurd.

Certainly; however, I was simply making an observation. His current pictures are around 80 pixels in width (about the size of my avatar) which is very small for the intent (showcasing work). 4x larger (320px wide) may be pushing it for 800x600; but at least the intent is served.

[hdcolumbus]

I can tell you that, surprisingly enough, many people still do use 800x600. Almost all designers still design with this size in mind. Some sites scale up using a liquid layout, but rest assures the site is designed at 8x6 first.

Absolutely:

2006 January
Higher = 17%
1024x768 = 57%
800x600 = 20%
640x480 = 0%
Unknown = 6%

But, the trend is really going towards 1024X768

Stats taken from W3Schools (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)

[transcend]

Certainly; however, I was simply making an observation. His current pictures are around 80 pixels in width (about the size of my avatar) which is very small for the intent (showcasing work). 4x larger (320px wide) may be pushing it for 800x600; but at least the intent is served.

80 pixels wide?

Not sure what pics you are looking at, but they are much wider than that. Easily 350px x400px.

Also, 20% is a huge number of people who now see a horribly designed website that you need to scroll on to read. 20% is an incredibly large number of people who now are frustrated when they see your site. There is absolutely no need for a portfolio site to be this wide.

[hdcolumbus]

80 pixels wide?

Not sure what pics you are looking at, but they are much wider than that. Easily 350px x400px.

Also, 20% is a huge number of people who now see a horribly designed website that you need to scroll on to read. 20% is an incredibly large number of people who now are frustrated when they see your site. There is absolutely no need for a portfolio site to be this wide.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place; but here is an actual full-sized screen shot of what I see (maybe it's an FF issue):

[hdcolumbus]

...Also, 20% is a huge number of people who now see a horribly designed website that you need to scroll on to read. 20% is an incredibly large number of people who now are frustrated when they see your site. There is absolutely no need for a portfolio site to be this wide.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was actually backing up your original claim that "surprisingly enough, many people still do use 800x600" with actual supported data. I simply pointed out that the trend was moving towards 1024X768 (on average 2-3% per month if you look at the data). Having said that, 20% is definitely a HUGE number of people and you'd be crazy not to design a site which supports that audience.

[hdcolumbus]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place; but here is an actual full-sized screen shot of what I see (maybe it's an FF issue):

Yup... FF problem. Tested in IE 6,7 looks okay. In FireFox and Netscape, the image problem exists. Safari on Mac, looks okay.

[Helenica]

The picture size is ok on my screen. (1024*768) I like the overall layout of your site. The headers are great. There seems to be a problem with the Still life and Bio buttons. Still life opens Animals and Bio doesn't work.

I don't think that the houses bits really belong on this site. Perhaps you should rather create a second site for those.