Here is the link for my website. If your resolution is higher than 1024x768 they may seem small. Leave a feedback.
www.knlarts.com
luisgriveratorres Member 55 posts Joined Aug 2004 More info | Apr 24, 2006 23:20 | #1 Here is the link for my website. If your resolution is higher than 1024x768 they may seem small. Leave a feedback.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mathiau Goldmember  1,514 posts Gallery: 16 photos Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2006 Location: Born in London, England living in Calgary, AB More info | Apr 24, 2006 23:29 | #2 I am @ 1024 x 768 on a 15" laptop and your text is small, may want toincrease that a little more. Currently Dreaming about what gear to own in the near future
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Thanks, seems that I need to work on that.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pup Goldmember  1,812 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: NJ More info | Apr 25, 2006 04:02 | #4 well, i just set up a porta... here it is ... check it out let me know... Screening shots
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I like that concept. Can you tell me what the resolution for those pictures is. Do you think that mine look to small?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Titus213 Cream of the Crop  More info | Apr 26, 2006 19:00 | #6 Your pictures are WAY TO SMALL. You can safely go probably 4x larger. Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SonyaL Senior Member 609 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Texas More info | May 01, 2006 23:06 | #7 I would change my font size to medium.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hdcolumbus Member  132 posts Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2006 Location: New Albany, Ohio More info | With dual-monitors running 1200x1600 screen resolution, the text is extremely small (as mentioned) and your photos are about the size of my thumbnail.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
transcend Goldmember  1,461 posts Joined Oct 2004 Location: Squamish, BC More info | hdcolumbus wrote: 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jbkalla Goldmember  2,831 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2006 Location: Elizabeth, Colorado, USA More info | May 04, 2006 14:58 | #10 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. John
LOG IN TO REPLY |
transcend Goldmember 1,461 posts Joined Oct 2004 Location: Squamish, BC More info | jbkalla wrote: 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hdcolumbus Member 132 posts Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2006 Location: New Albany, Ohio More info | transcend wrote: 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hdcolumbus Member 132 posts Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2006 Location: New Albany, Ohio More info | transcend wrote: 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:
LOG IN TO REPLY |
transcend Goldmember 1,461 posts Joined Oct 2004 Location: Squamish, BC More info | hdcolumbus wrote: 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?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hdcolumbus Member 132 posts Likes: 3 Joined Apr 2006 Location: New Albany, Ohio More info | transcend wrote: 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):  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2349 guests, 102 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
