Native Resolution of your computer/notebook display

[Darren]

We are continually tweaking the display elements of the site, and it is currently set to a less-than-optimum minimum width of 1000 pixels to accommodate users who are potentially using screens around the 1024 x 768 native resolution.

Since larger monitor sizes are very common now, we want to find out what screen sizes the members are currently using (iPad and tablets aside as we have native iOS and Android apps available).

Please give us your feedback on the native screen resolution on the computer/notebook that you most regularly use to view ClubSNAP.

Thank You!

 

[David Kwok]

Curious, which aspect of the forum is constraint to 1000px? It seems the forum is a flexible element that is filling up the browser's width. While it seems the display resolution is expanding for higher resolution, I do find it's unusual that user fullscreen the browser for such large width mainly for the following reason

1) Extra desktop area offers more windows placed side by side rather than using all of the them for one purpose, unless the application is itself a multi panels design spanning across the desktop asset.
2) Despite the desktop resolution expand, the distance between human and desktop do not typically get further and hence the visual, while limited by the FOV, will still be more comfortable to read displayed elements constraint within a sizable range rather than following the width of the monitor. Eg: I'm using a 1900px in width display, but I myself find it comfortable to read the flowing of text only across slightly larger than half the width of the 1900px, roughly 1000px.

Please consider my feedback.
Thanks

 

[Darren]

Appreciate the feedback. One of the issues that users might come across is the images that spill over the width of the borders. We can implement a code to resize the image to fit within the 1000 pixel limit currently, which means that the image likely has to be less than 800 pixels wide.

 

[David Kwok]

Appreciate the feedback. One of the issues that users might come across is the images that spill over the width of the borders. We can implement a code to resize the image to fit within the 1000 pixel limit currently, which means that the image likely has to be less than 800 pixels wide.

I see, so the contents are what meanwhile clubsnap is trying to tackle. Perhaps dynamic resizing of selected contents based on its parent container might be a good way to adapt to the dynamic width of the forum ? I do come across jQuery resize event to be of good use for such scenarios. If the width falls less than the native size of the image, then just resize it smaller dynamically, if not, just display at the native size ?

I have made an example found below to illustrate my point.
I have also made it not to react to every single resize event because it may be taxing on slower system.

Example for your consideration: http://goo.gl/Jx2TH

 

[Darren]

I see, so the contents are what meanwhile clubsnap is trying to tackle. Perhaps dynamic resizing of selected contents based on its parent container might be a good way to adapt to the dynamic width of the forum ? I do come across jQuery resize event to be of good use for such scenarios. If the width falls less than the native size of the image, then just resize it smaller dynamically, if not, just display at the native size ?

I have made an example found below to illustrate my point.
I have also made it not to react to every single resize event because it may be taxing on slower system.

Since we do not serve images directly from our site, there won't be any impact. Any changes will be via CSS properties.

 

[David Kwok]

Since we do not serve images directly from our site, there won't be any impact. Any changes will be via CSS properties.

The solution I have presented do not assume the images come from Clubsnap. Because the images tag are generated by the rich text editor in cs, hence it is a well controlled HTML form. The presented solution uses jquery to easily control the Dom in the browser, which is one of the excellent JavaScript library meanwhile.

 

[Etna-sama]

Basically, i have a more liberal view, which states that any resolution is fine as long as it is optimized for a display that has an aspect ratio of 16:9.

The reason is simple: just about any single notebook display, standalone monitor and tablet out in the market today makes use of a screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio. The only exception to this norm is Apple which insists on using 16:10 screens for their computers and 3:2 screens for their tablet.

Since there is no such thing as 'catering for the minority', and Apple users love to be different anyway, they can continue being different with their devices that feature non-mainstream aspect ratios while the majority of users with standard machines that come built with displays that comply with current mainstream aspect ratios. This way, everybody wins; Apple users can continue to brag about how they and their machines are 'different' while other standard users can benefit from having a better Clubsnap which is optimized for viewing on mainstream aspect ratios.

Optimizing Clubsnap for 16:10 will be a big mistake that will only cause issues for countless visitors who are using standard 16:9 displays found in virtually all computing devices and monitors that are not embossed with an Apple logo.

 

[JeForceX]

1366x768 on a 14-inch Notebook PC.
Wow.. So many people are on 1920x1080 screen resolution!

 

[Ah Pao]

Well, most monitors now support "Full HD" resolution natively, which means 1080 pixels vertical resolution. The industry's response to the "Full HD" phenomenon.

 

[ninelives]

this thread is 5 yrs old. don't think anyone will use resolution lower then 1440.