Modern Life is no longer updated.
After a long hiatus due to increased working commitment, lack of inspiration, and unclear goals: I've decided not to rekindle this blog but to start anew in more fertile soil. Modern Life will remain online as-is for the forseeable future.
I'm now posting at my new blog, User Interfaced.
< Back to 'Screen Resolutions and Aspect Ratios Worldwide'
13 comments:
Pete wrote:
I think you just went of the geek scale :)
I'll join you there though as I found this to be extremely interesting reading.
It is particulary interesting to consider that the region with the lowest average resolution is still a touch over 1024x768.
What was the size of your data pool for working out these stats?
Stuart wrote:
@Pete - you missed the methodology? :) It's data from my own stats (so expect a strong bias towards tech and design - and an elevation in average resolution), running from May 2006 to November 2007 (i.e. now) - 18 months of data, covering about 1.1 million visits.
Pete wrote:
Ah yes. I realised that you already said that after I posted my comment :)
In my defence I was skim reading while meant to be working on a dull form.
Jaffer wrote:
Hi Stuart !
Love your blog ! Been a long time reader too !
Couldn't happen to notice why you've slowed down drastically in the past few months !
Best Regards !
Stuart wrote:
@Jaffer - Been busy and short on ideas for content, so I took a couple of months sabbatical to refresh and to come up with new ideas for posts :)
Vyoma wrote:
Ah - finally you are back from your 'sabbatical'.
This was an interesting study and definitely helps in deciding the screen resolution to aim for when designing webpages. :)
Adam Darowski wrote:
Oh, man... I missed these gorgeous charts. Welcome back, Stuart. :)
Md Mudassir Alam wrote:
A Well researched piece, i liked it and also get valuable information about sreen resolutions worldwide. Well done, good job man
Jakob S wrote:
Interesting and well analyzed findings, thumbs up. Their usefulness in deciding anything in regards to web design, however, is debatable.
The screen resolution might give a nice upper boundary for how big a browser can grow, but the reality is that the browser window can be - and often is - smaller than all available screen real estate. And the content viewport area, which is really what we should be designing for, is even smaller than the browser window.
See http://www.baekdal.com/reports/actual-browser-sizes/ and http://mentalized.net/journal/2006/10/24/browser_size_does_matter_actual_numbers/ for more information and references.
Stuart wrote:
@Jakob - I'd agree screen resolution isn't a great measure for design - my native screen res is 2560x1600, and I wouldn't dream of running a maximised window. At the lower end - 800x600, 1024x768 etc, it's probably more of a consideration.
Whilst there's no concrete link between actual browser size and screen size, it's likely there'll be some correlation. I just wish we could all produce 100% fluid, 100% scalable designs :-)
Jakob S wrote:
I just wish I could design those :P
Stuart wrote:
Damn technology. I'm blaming IE and the lack of decent SVG support.
Adam Griffiths wrote:
IE is definitely a pile of 'what you should be sticking in the bin' :-P
Its nice to see an insight of screen resolutions for other visitors of ML. I'm running 1680x1050px and always have all windows maximized...so I can concentrate on the website instead of being distracted by my pretty desktop picture.
Comments are closed.
< Back to 'Screen Resolutions and Aspect Ratios Worldwide'