Problem with page width and HTML optimization.

[djr33]

Sure. And do they use all of it? They might have only 800x600 (or less) available if their windows aren't maximized. I agree with your intuition that lower resolution generally means maximizing the windows, but I don't know that it's true-- we don't have any statistics available for that.

[letom]

The best idea i would like to recommend for this long discussion is use pixel and keep 3 version of website,

one is for 800 pixel and higher,
two is for 370 pixel - 799 pixel.
three is for Mobile devices below 370 pixel,

we can keep first two design same but should make 3rd as different... The topics written above will not understand on first read. It would be nice if we write the things in a manner, which gives more readability.

[djr33]

Having three versions of your website is in most cases probably unnecessary. It's certainly a lot more work. Mobile devices are now able to zoom in easily, so they can view most normal websites. Sometimes a special mobile website is useful for special tasks, but often I don't see the purpose (as a visitor) and want information from the "real" (non-mobile) website.
Beyond that, it can be incredibly difficult to always be sure that you're displaying the right page for your visitors.

Realistically, I think very few visitors will have less than 800 pixels.

Personally I strongly prefer percentage layouts, at least as part of the design-- some things are better as pixel layouts, and that's fine, but they should be embedded in a design that can expand, even if that's just a well-designed background.

[letom]

it can be incredibly difficult to always be sure that you're displaying the right page for your visitors.

Yes,.. but i think php code for checking screen width doesn't fails to a certain extend ?

Realistically, I think very few visitors will have less than 800 pixels

We cannot predict what devices will come to market in near future, but for a better presentation in IPAD or devices below netbooks in such way.

Personally I strongly prefer percentage layouts, at least as part of the design-- some things are better as pixel layouts, and that's fine, but they should be embedded in a design that can expand, even if that's just a well-designed background.

I never, i changed pixel to percentage and back percentage to pixel in last week for the big website i am developing. check now its the time for touch panel devices, if we use jquery touch panel friendly modules, percentage, degrades our website and stop functioning it, even if we use min and max width, height.

[djr33]

Yes,.. but i think php code for checking screen width doesn't fails to a certain extend ?

It is unreliable. It can be a good guess, but it's based on what the user chooses to send to the server, which might be inaccurate or might not be sent at all. It also won't say anything about the actual size of the window, so it won't be able to do anything about when the user makes the window larger or smaller on the screen.

We cannot predict what devices will come to market in near future, but for a better presentation in IPAD or devices below netbooks in such way.

Netbooks are generally 800+, no? They have very limited vertical resolution, though. That's the biggest problem with mine, at least.

iPads are a great example of being able to zoom. Even iPhones. There's really no trouble accessing any website because you can zoom in.

[Beverleyh]

Sure. And do they use all of it? They might have only 800x600 (or less) available if their windows aren't maximized. I agree with your intuition that lower resolution generally means maximizing the windows, but I don't know that it's true-- we don't have any statistics available for that.

It's a complete pain, isn't it - ha, ha.

I agree that beyond a certain width, it will be more commonplace to open multiple windows side-by-side, especially when viewing websites that look good at a narrower width - and by today's standards, 'narrow' is likely to include the 960 designs (relatively speaking, those do look narrow on a 1920 resolution screen and at that width, opening two 960 websites side-by-side will be easy)

Sure. And do they use all of it?.

Hhmmm... It might be the optimist in me but if the screen width is there, I like to think that people will use it if they need/want to. I am reminded of the days when my mum insisted that I took a cardigan out with me (even during glorious sunshine), usually couple with the advice that "you can always take it off". How very true! That's now my opinion of the browser favourites bar

[djr33]

Hhmmm... It might be the optimist in me but if the screen width is there, I like to think that people will use it if they need/want to.

I believe they'll figure it out if they need to (I surely hope so!), but the question is whether they want to. I guess it depends on the type of website-- I usually browse websites for information, not for the experience/fun. So if a website made me maximize my window just to get the information, I'd be annoyed. I do, of course, sometimes maximize my window for certain things, such as viewing large videos, or something else that's more about entertainment than information.

Tangent:
A really bad example of a website is the one my university uses for grading [for instructors] and viewing grades and materials [for students] (actually, it's one of two options-- the other is almost as bad, but without some of the technical difficulties). It attempts to force you to only open one window. Not of the same page. But of any page. It'll keep alerting you and refusing to do things until you close both, if it can't automatically close your other window! But then the real issue is the part where you actually enter the grades. It's an incredibly ineffectively JS-clone of Excel, where you can enter grades and have them save automatically (with Ajax I assume-- I haven't looked at the code). But it's awful. It crashes my browser ever time and takes about 5 minutes to load when you have something like 10-20 assignments listed for 30 students. And then scrolling takes forever, and you can't (even on my 1440x960 display) show the whole thing at one time. And that's because the grades are in a small frame (well, it feels like a frame, not sure about the code), so that is about 400px tall and about 90% wide. It's the main reason I'm glad I'm done grading this semester. They keep adding "features", yet it gets worse and worse. (And I still don't really understand how to make something scored as "extra credit", although I finally found a work around. But that's another story.)

[letom]

Netbooks are generally 800+, no? They have very limited vertical resolution, though. That's the biggest problem with mine, at least.

Yes, but some people put their resolution to 800 pixel.

It is unreliable. It can be a good guess, but it's based on what the user chooses to send to the server, which might be inaccurate or might not be sent at all. It also won't say anything about the actual size of the window, so it won't be able to do anything about when the user makes the window larger or smaller on the screen.

Yes it is a major issue.. I am identified that from the tab of my brother-law, when he start surfing my company website, it is not redirecting to mobile version as coded.. I am paying more time in front of my computer, so i will not take any initiative to surf internet through my nokia mobile, but my Nokia phone do well and work according to code.

Is there any accurate solution for that ?

[djr33]

There's no perfect solution. There are some ways to improve accuracy, but nothing that will be without exceptions. This has been discussed a few times here, I think, so try looking for some of the older threads. Or start a new thread about browser/resolution detection if you'd like. But here we shouldn't get too far off topic about how to detect screen resolutions, just what to do about that information once you know it.