451 voted for Increase limit to 800x800 395 voted for No change 130 voted for Increase limit to 700x700 136 voted for Increase limit to 800x700
As for the results of the screen resolution poll, 841 users participated.
324 users with 1024x768 211 users with 1280x1024 46 users with 1152x864 44 users with 1280x800 38 users with 1600x1200 37 users with 1680x1050 24 users with 1400x1050 23 users with 800x600 21 users with 1280x960 17 users with 1280x854 16 users with 1440x900 14 users with 1920x1200
* Ignoring a few odd resolutions with less than 5 users.
While the poll results would indicate that the majority of the site wants a change, I'm just not sure we're ready for it.
Using Windows XP, IE6, with start bar visible, and default positioning of the chrome in IE, a user would need a resolution of *x960 to view an image that's 800 pixels tall. Based on the results of our screen poll, only 358 of those people (43%) would actually be able to completely see an image that is 800 pixels tall.
Even with a common resolution of 1280x1024 users would still need to scroll down a little bit to competely see an image that is 800 pixels tall. Only 120 people (14%) in the poll have resolutions that are better with a height of 1024 or larger.
To put things in perspective, view this image that is 800 pixels tall and see how you feel. To me, it looks great at 1600x1200, but when I go down to 1280x1024, I'm just not sure I would even want to vote on a slew of images this large.
It's still up for discussion -- I'm curious as to how people feel now with the information I've provided.
Do you suppose that if 800x800 were not an option a lot of those people would have voted instead for 700x700, or 800x700? And would either of these be acceptable for a majority of the users given the average resolution?
I think your evaluation of the situation is correct. But I also think that a larger size image is a good thing in many cases. Maybe we could take a look at a 720 pixel maximum on the long side?
Do you suppose that if 800x800 were not an option a lot of those people would have voted instead for 700x700, or 800x700? And would either of these be acceptable for a majority of the users given the average resolution?
Could be. I had considered re-polling with different options. 800x700 just seems unfair to those that would submit portrait instead of landscape... but I supposedly going into it, everyone would have the level 800x700 playing field.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think your evaluation of the situation is correct. But I also think that a larger size image is a good thing in many cases. Maybe we could take a look at a 720 pixel maximum on the long side?
I agree that a larger size is good... I personally want 800x800, but I don't think it's fair to those without the screen real-estate. Depending on how this discussion goes, 700x700 or 720x720 might be what we end up with.
I agree that a larger size is good... I personally want 800x800, but I don't think it's fair to those without the screen real-estate. Depending on how this discussion goes, 700x700 or 720x720 might be what we end up with.
but... your vote alone equals 50 other votes :p
ok seriously, while it's true that it might be painful for some to vote/view on 800pixel tall images, I still hope maybe we enlarge to something more practical like 720 or at least 700, please? maybe another vote is a good idea.
I love the idea on my normal monitor at home, but my laptop needs some scrolling once I get to an 800 pixel image. Maybe a way to rescale image size in options? Is that even possible?
Just for information's sake, here's a screenshot of what I see at 1024x768 which is my max resolution (I know, I know, get a real monitor, blah blah blah). Granted, not everyone has a browser setup like I do, I just thought it was interesting to check out in lieu of this discussion.
That means I'm seeing about this much of the photo at one time:
I voted for 800X800, but after seeing the photo you posted, I would vote differently. I have to scroll too far to see all of it.
This is what I'm worried about.
Langdon, please could you kindly also do a sample image with 720 (or 700) pixels tall for members to check out? I think it'd be useful. Thanks
I have my resolution set at 1024x768 even though I can go up to 1280x1024. Even in the 1024x768 I only have to scroll a small amount because I use the F11 function while voting.
Here is how much of the photo you can see with a resolution of 1024x768 and use the F11 function while voting.
Ok, with any change you have to do a mock up run. Lets do one and see how it goes. Make it open challenge. If you don't experiment you will may never know the answers are.
This is what I'm worried about.
Langdon, please could you kindly also do a sample image with 720 (or 700) pixels tall for members to check out? I think it'd be useful. Thanks
Ok, with any change you have to do a mock up run. Lets do one and see how it goes. Make it open challenge. If you don't experiment you will may never know the answers are.
good decision Langdon.
800x600 just doesn't fit on any of my screens. I have a sight problem which means I will never run anything more than 1280 unless I get a 26" monitor.
Even if there was a significant majority in favour, which there isn't I would still like to hope that you would consider the needs of the community without 20/20 vision.
