<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Design Consideration: Monitor Resolutions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html</link>
	<description>An alternative design education community</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Rothra</title>
		<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>John Rothra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:25:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-33</guid>
		<description>I wish I had those kinds of numbers.  At my site, Analytics today showed that 12.21% of my visitors use 800x600 and 12.55% over the past month use 800x600.  So, I'll alienate a good chunk if I'm too wide.  GRRRR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I had those kinds of numbers.  At my site, Analytics today showed that 12.21% of my visitors use 800&#215;600 and 12.55% over the past month use 800&#215;600.  So, I&#8217;ll alienate a good chunk if I&#8217;m too wide.  GRRRR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senff</title>
		<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Senff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-32</guid>
		<description>I'm still at the 760 pixel phase (actually, 780), fearing that I would shut out too many people if I would go wider than that. Fact is however, you don't really shut out anyone with a too small design, but you would shut up people with a too wide design.... So it's not like it's "bad design", no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still at the 760 pixel phase (actually, 780), fearing that I would shut out too many people if I would go wider than that. Fact is however, you don&#8217;t really shut out anyone with a too small design, but you would shut up people with a too wide design&#8230;. So it&#8217;s not like it&#8217;s &#8220;bad design&#8221;, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rmccarley</title>
		<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>rmccarley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-24</guid>
		<description>You shouldn't encourage your son that way. I know the guy and that is just asking for trouble!

One of my site tracking tools recently added resolution statistics. I was thinking the same way you were but it turns out less than 2% of my total all-time traffic uses 800x600. And most of that is from a year ago. Now it is less than 1%. I checked my other sites and only one showed some consistent traffic using 800x600. So I think that it is time to retire "good old 760" unless you are working on a site that is non-current events, non-tech, non-design and caters to an international audience where portions of it may be using what we consider "outdated" technology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You shouldn&#8217;t encourage your son that way. I know the guy and that is just asking for trouble!</p>
<p>One of my site tracking tools recently added resolution statistics. I was thinking the same way you were but it turns out less than 2% of my total all-time traffic uses 800&#215;600. And most of that is from a year ago. Now it is less than 1%. I checked my other sites and only one showed some consistent traffic using 800&#215;600. So I think that it is time to retire &#8220;good old 760&#8243; unless you are working on a site that is non-current events, non-tech, non-design and caters to an international audience where portions of it may be using what we consider &#8220;outdated&#8221; technology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kichus</title>
		<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>kichus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 05:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-23</guid>
		<description>One month data is not that small. Also if you know the audience then easily you can conclude this. The 0.67 says almost all your visitors are living in 2007 and not in 1990s... If my target audience is technically sound people, and I can offer them better usability with a 3 column template, I would have ignored the 600*800.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One month data is not that small. Also if you know the audience then easily you can conclude this. The 0.67 says almost all your visitors are living in 2007 and not in 1990s&#8230; If my target audience is technically sound people, and I can offer them better usability with a 3 column template, I would have ignored the 600*800.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skitzzo</title>
		<link>http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Skitzzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designrefugee.com/design-blog/monitor-resolution.html#comment-22</guid>
		<description>Woohoo!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Woohoo!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
