|
Designing_by_Numbers_ _Statistics_and_No_Lies
| Designing by Numbers -- Statistics and No Lies!
Stats tell us a myriad of things, some even useful and we're
accustomed to using them in our marketing and selling processes.
Frequently abused and made to say what WE want, but here I am
merely considering them in ways that influence site design ...
and, I believe, letting the numbers speak for themselves.
Before finalising my own choices for the recent (and always in
progress) re-design at http://www.tucats-design.com I had a look
at my stats and at various global statistical information online.
For this exercise, I took a glance at the overall picture via
the third-party service I use from http://www.thecounter.com --
all my pages have their invisible option installed. Raw log
stats will tell you a whole lot more, but this serves the
purpose.
OK, I'm lazy and I like getting their weekly report by email.
The information (percentages) for my site are those used for the
analysis below. The global stats I consulted didn't show any
fundamental differences from these findings, i.e. they should
apply to you too unless your site only caters to some specific
group that is far and away from the average.
Resolution:
Unknown (2%) 640x480 (9%) 800x600 (61%) 1024x768 (23%) 1152x864
(1%) 1280x1024 (1%) 1600x1200 (0%)
It wasn't that long ago that there was a case for making sites
at a fixed 600 pixel width to fit the 640 x 480 resolution. For
single-product sales letters, I think there is still a case. It
looks better than having lines stretch across too wide a portion
of the screen, even if the visitor does have 1024 x 768.
If you have more content to link to, you need space for menus
and stuff. Is it safe to use a bit more screen real estate? I
take my lead from Boogie Jack - http://boogiejack.com -- in that
when a group drops below 10%, then it is safe to stop labouring
too hard to make things absolutely and perfectly compatible.
The percentages above too are taken from cumulative data -- that
is those built over time. What they don't show is that the 9%
using 640 x 480 could have visited months ago. I certainly know
that percentage has been dropping as time has passed.
So, to fit in with the now most common 800 x 600 resolution, I
am using a fixed width of 750 pixels for the tables that form
the basis for my design. Now it's true that you could just
design in 100% widths so that it will adapt to everything, but
it is just so much harder to do, especially if you want to use
tables with multiple columns. The chances are high that you'll
put some image somewhere which mucks it up. Been there!
As you can see, 1024 x 768 has now jumped up into second place
(I use that resolution myself) at a pretty meaningful 23%. Yet I
see sites every day that look absolutely awful at that
resolution because they were designed for smaller sizes, but
using 100% width tables. You really need to consider this group
now.
However, it is easy to test and easy to change your resolution.
For the vast majority of you using Windows 98. Simply Right
click on any blank portion of your desktop and select
"Properties" from the popup menu. From there, select the
Settings tab.
You'll see a slider control in the bottom-right of that window,
which will probably go from 640 x 480 to 800 x 600 and 1024 x
768 on the right. Choose any option and you'll have 15 seconds
to "test" after which the machine will restore automatically to
your previous settings, unless you tell it otherwise.
Another way is to get SilverThingy from Sausage Software "Test
Web pages in a number of screen configurations. Using either
Internet Explorer or Netscape you are able to preview your Web
pages in the three popular screen resolutions (640 by 480, 800
by 600, 1024 by 768). This allows you to make certain your Web
pages will look great on everyone's screens regardless of their
settings!"
http://www.sausage.com/supertoolz/web_utilities/stsilverthingy.ht
ml
Browsers:
MSIE 5.x (70%) Netscape 4.x (14%) MSIE 4.x (9%) Netscape comp.
(2%) MSIE 2.x (1%) Opera x.x (0%) MSIE 3.x (0%) Unknown (0%)
Netscape 3.x (0%) Mozilla 5.x (0%) Netscape 2.x (0%) Netscape
1.x (0%)
The days of having to be absolutely pedantic about
"cross-browser compatibility" are gone.
With a total of 79% of visitors able to see most or all of the
extra goodies that you can do, particularly with CSS, in IE 4 &
5, use 'em. Just take care that they are only "lost" on Netscape
users and don't turn out looking funny.
Forms are my bug-bear. You can format neat little boxes to fit
in small spaces in IE, then they take up half the page in
Netscape. I still have some to fix. If you design for MS IE, I'd
advise you, from bitter experience, to take another look at
yours.
Keep a copy of Netscape on your machine for testing as I do, or
save heaps of HD space and pop along to
http://www.anybrowser.com -- "Your Source for Browser
Compatibility Verification".
Operating System:
Win 98 (69%) Win 95 (15%) Win NT (6%) Win 2000 (2%) Unknown (2%)
Mac (1%) WebTV (1%) Unix (0%) Win 3.x (0%) Linux (0%) Amiga (0%)
OS/2 (0%)
Nothing here we didn't know already! With only 1% of people
using a Mac, you really have to make a decision. Do you really
need to labour creating alternatives such as .pdf flavour eBooks
or do you cater to the vast majority and stick with .exe? Your
call!
Java/JavaScript:
No JavaScript: (5%) JavaScript
|
|
| |
| |
