I could not start a fire into myself.

[dolari]

So you all seem to like setup #2 for the 2006 website redesign. I'm also really surprised that not only was #2 th unanimous winner, but so was the neon design compared to the marble (which I thought was pretty classy myself). Anyways, the mob has spoken, and neon #2 it is.

I was a little worried about scrolling issues from people who use a 640x480 or 800x600 resolution...and then I remembered that my site meter tracks resolutions. So I fired it up and looked over the resolutions of the last 1000 people to the site:

 800x 600 10.56
 960x 600   .13
1024x 640   .08
1024x 768 50.09
1024x 820   .08
1024x1280   .18
1152x 864  4.64
1152x 870   .08
1280x 720   .15
1280x 768  1.27
1280x 800  4.06
1280x 854  1.17
1280x 960  1.34
1280x1024 18.17
1344x1008   .18
1400x1050  1.12
1440x 900   .91
1536x 960   .08
1600x1024   .05
1600x1200  2.46
1680x1050  1.95
1920x1200   .61
2304x 864   .13
3072x 768   .05

Wow! No 640x480 at all! And only 10% of the readers will be affected by the scrolling issue. I'd rather it was less, but when 90% of your readers use an acceptable resolution, it looks like Neon #2 is the new design. :) Look for it at a browser near you in 2006.

Comments

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

nod, resolution results like that are about what I'd expect.

[max-volume.livejournal.com]

3072 x 768? That is bizarre - four times as wide as it is tall, assuming square pixels. Must be spread across a few monitors...