Comments for Taylor D Dewey http://websitesthatdontsuck.com Designing Websites That Don't Suck Since 1998 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:20:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on New Business Cards by Eric Mannhttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2012/01/new-business-cards/#comment-50 Eric Mann Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:20:15 +0000 http://websitesthatdontsuck.com/?p=1326#comment-50 What have we told you about rounded corners? Sheesh, I thought you knew better by now :-( What have we told you about rounded corners? Sheesh, I thought you knew better by now :-(

]]> Comment on Typology of a Facebook Profile Photo by Karenhttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2009/02/typeology-of-a-facebook-profile-photo/#comment-6 Karen Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:10:24 +0000 http://tddewey.com/?p=88#comment-6 And one more, the person who uses a photo of their child instead of themselves. This to me says, "I am my child. They are me. I do not distinguish." And one more, the person who uses a photo of their child instead of themselves. This to me says, “I am my child. They are me. I do not distinguish.”

]]> Comment on Nalgene-Outdoor.com by Taylor Deweyhttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2009/02/nalgene-outdoor/#comment-3 Taylor Dewey Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:03:33 +0000 http://tddewey.com/?p=76#comment-3 @Jade: I don't agree that designing for a particular monitor resolution is a <em>fundamental</em> rule. I understand where the reasoning behind 640x480 designs comes from though. Each project is different in regards to how it should look and function given the context of the end user. I don't know the exact user demographics of nalgene-outdoor.com but if it's anything like w3schools, it makes very little sense to design for 800x600.According to <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp" rel="nofollow">w3schools.com</a> (whose statistics are likely somewhat skewed toward technology savvy) only 4% of all web users were using displays at 800x600. 36% were using 1024x768 and 57% had their monitors set higher than that. In web design it is impossible to design for the lowest common denominator, instead we must design for the largest audience for the least amount of extra work.Current industry standard is to design for 1024x768 at 24bit color unless usage statistics for a particular audience dictate otherwise.While I'm on my soapbox, all IE6 users should hurry up and upgrade to IE7. Once IE8 is released to the masses I'm going to seriously consider ceasing all testing and support for IE6 -- a hideous, awful browser (currently about 17% of all users, a stat likely skewed toward IE7 and Firefox). @Jade: I don’t agree that designing for a particular monitor resolution is a fundamental rule. I understand where the reasoning behind 640×480 designs comes from though. Each project is different in regards to how it should look and function given the context of the end user. I don’t know the exact user demographics of nalgene-outdoor.com but if it’s anything like w3schools, it makes very little sense to design for 800×600.

According to w3schools.com (whose statistics are likely somewhat skewed toward technology savvy) only 4% of all web users were using displays at 800×600. 36% were using 1024×768 and 57% had their monitors set higher than that. In web design it is impossible to design for the lowest common denominator, instead we must design for the largest audience for the least amount of extra work.

Current industry standard is to design for 1024×768 at 24bit color unless usage statistics for a particular audience dictate otherwise.

While I’m on my soapbox, all IE6 users should hurry up and upgrade to IE7. Once IE8 is released to the masses I’m going to seriously consider ceasing all testing and support for IE6 — a hideous, awful browser (currently about 17% of all users, a stat likely skewed toward IE7 and Firefox).

]]> Comment on Nalgene-Outdoor.com by Jadehttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2009/02/nalgene-outdoor/#comment-2 Jade Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:50:23 +0000 http://tddewey.com/?p=76#comment-2 This doesn't work in 800*600, which violates such a fundamental rule of web design.It would be nice if there were a way to auto-detect resolution settings and use a different stylesheet for smaller resolutions. Maybe there is a way and I don't know about it? This doesn’t work in 800*600, which violates such a fundamental rule of web design.

It would be nice if there were a way to auto-detect resolution settings and use a different stylesheet for smaller resolutions. Maybe there is a way and I don’t know about it?

]]> Comment on Typology of a Facebook Profile Photo by Taylor Deweyhttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2009/02/typeology-of-a-facebook-profile-photo/#comment-5 Taylor Dewey Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:43:35 +0000 http://tddewey.com/?p=88#comment-5 Well, I suppose that just about doubles my initial list... And you made me think of another one: the photograph-photoshopped-to-look-like-the-obama-hope-poster. It's somewhere in between shot-by-a-professional-photographer and friend-is-a-professional-artist, but way tackier than either.And what about the: no-matter-when-or-where-this-photo-was-taken-I-always-look-awesome profile pictures... Well, I suppose that just about doubles my initial list… And you made me think of another one: the photograph-photoshopped-to-look-like-the-obama-hope-poster. It’s somewhere in between shot-by-a-professional-photographer and friend-is-a-professional-artist, but way tackier than either.

And what about the: no-matter-when-or-where-this-photo-was-taken-I-always-look-awesome profile pictures…

]]> Comment on Typology of a Facebook Profile Photo by Jadehttp://websitesthatdontsuck.com/2009/02/typeology-of-a-facebook-profile-photo/#comment-4 Jade Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:02:20 +0000 http://tddewey.com/?p=88#comment-4 You forgot about the "recent-snap-that-shows-you-engaged-in-a-hobby-but-isn't-very-candid" subcategory. A good handful of my Facebook friends are dressed in ski gear posed in the snow, or rocking out on an electric guitar in their profile photos. Then there's the "headshot-but-dressed-up-in-a-kooky-way-because-this-shows-a-bit-more-of-my-personality" profile photos. They're leftover from Halloween, or a revue you were or something of that nature. You yourself have a handful of these, even! Then the ever so popular "I-shot-this-with-my-webcam" variation on the headshot. These are for the hardcore Facebook whores, and usually change once or twice each week because the person who the profile belongs to would drop to the floor, start having seizures and foaming at the mouth if they went more than a day without updating their profile. This person typically shows up in your news feed on a daily basis, even if you didn't select the "more about this person" option. This sort of photo will often even appear as a too-close shot of the person, or a random body part, just to mix things up.Then, in sort of an obscure category, you have the "I-am-or-my-friend-is-a-professional-artist,-here-is-a-very-true-to-likeness-drawing-painting-whatever-of-me". I know two people with these. I must admit, I am a little jealous. These profile photos make the "shot-by-a-professional-photographer-headshot" look so unambitious by comparison. You forgot about the “recent-snap-that-shows-you-engaged-in-a-hobby-but-isn’t-very-candid” subcategory. A good handful of my Facebook friends are dressed in ski gear posed in the snow, or rocking out on an electric guitar in their profile photos. Then there’s the “headshot-but-dressed-up-in-a-kooky-way-because-this-shows-a-bit-more-of-my-personality” profile photos. They’re leftover from Halloween, or a revue you were or something of that nature. You yourself have a handful of these, even!
Then the ever so popular “I-shot-this-with-my-webcam” variation on the headshot. These are for the hardcore Facebook whores, and usually change once or twice each week because the person who the profile belongs to would drop to the floor, start having seizures and foaming at the mouth if they went more than a day without updating their profile. This person typically shows up in your news feed on a daily basis, even if you didn’t select the “more about this person” option. This sort of photo will often even appear as a too-close shot of the person, or a random body part, just to mix things up.

Then, in sort of an obscure category, you have the “I-am-or-my-friend-is-a-professional-artist,-here-is-a-very-true-to-likeness-drawing-painting-whatever-of-me”. I know two people with these. I must admit, I am a little jealous. These profile photos make the “shot-by-a-professional-photographer-headshot” look so unambitious by comparison.

]]>