Archive for April, 2008
If I had a list of things to do before I died, somewhere on there would be “go see a Red Sox game at Fenway Park.” I’m embarrassed to admit it, but I’ve never been to Fenway. And moving out to the west coast certainly made this task a little more difficult. So tomorrow morning I will traveling 3,000 miles to check this item off my list.
Other than the Red Sox game, I’ve purposely made no other plans. Planning is overrated. I think I’ll just wander aimlessly for five days and maybe try to locate some old acquaintances.
As I write this, I’m watching game six of the San Jose Sharks/Calgary Flames NHL playoffs series…in standard definition. Why standard definition? I dunno. It’s being aired on Comcast Sports Network, yet Comcast Sports Network HD is airing nothing. Not nothing as in Bass Fishing or Pro Bowling, nothing as is nothing. Nothing as in no signal. I guess I don’t understand how television programming and scheduling works. But that doesn’t matter. All I know is that this is pretty dumb.
Of all professional sports, hockey benefits the most from HD quality broadcasting. It’s just too hard to watch in standard definition. This is coming from someone that practically took his first steps in hockey skates. I’ve been playing ice hockey since I was four. But even I got frustrated following the tiny, blurred puck move from fuzzy player to fuzzy player. To watch hockey, I had to be at the game.
But a hockey game in HD is completely different. You can see every detail. Every puck movement. Every hit. Every emotion. HD is how the game was meant to be viewed.
But here I am living in the so called “technology hot bed” of America, during the NHL playoffs, watching the Sharks in standard definition on an underutilized Samsung 50 inch plasma tv.
I’ve found myself blogging about beer a lot. I wouldn’t even consider myself to be that much of a beer connoisseur, but I do know my way around the craft brew aisle of a Bevmo store.
Plus I’ve actually received some comments (ok, one comment) from fellow beer fans (fan) that happened to enjoy (accidentally find) my blog.
Alas, a good enough reason to create a new category.
Not that anyone really cares.
If you’ve designed, or at least have been somewhat involved in the design of a website, then it’s probably been hammered into your head that your site must be minimally viewable at 800×600.
Two or three years ago, I agreed with this notion. I don’t anymore. You’re pretty safe with using 1024×768 as a minimum screen resolution viewing size for your site. I’m not the only one that agrees…
W3Schools browser statistics lists computers with a 800×600 resolution at 14% in 2007, down 3% from the year before. It’s pretty safe to assume that it’s around 10% in 2008.
10% seems like a pretty significant number, but do you really want to limit the content on your site for a potential 10%? It will leave you much less space above the fold for images, embedded videos, web apps, etc. Is giving up some of that content really worth 10%?
I suppose it’s a trade-off you have to make. I made up my mind. I think I’m in pretty good company.
One thing to consider — if your site has significant readership from older and/or less technically savvy users, then it might be best to stick with 800×600. Those users are probably more likely to have smaller resolutions. If your site sways to the younger crowd, 1024×768 all the way!
Since I personally know all five people that view my site, I feel pretty confident in my decision.
(oh yeah, and of course Google Analytics will tell you everything you need to know about your readers)
Where am I right now?
- April 2012
- September 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Bolen: "This was a random month from t...
- Mike: "Well done, Lewis, well done. I...
- Matthew: "Operating on your funny bone h...
- Nelson: "Step 13: Blog post!...
- Nelson: "I was also surprised by the la...
- Mike: "In retrospect, I wish I had ta...
- Wysz: "No pictures?...
- Wysz: "Congrats, and I'm glad it's be...
- Mike: "Quick and dirty version is bac...
- Jenn: "@Mike - Thanks!...