From: Phil E. <ph...@li...> - 2006-06-05 12:39:43
|
Whenever I've released software into the big bad world, I've (up to now) made a conscious effort to ensure that all main windows and dialogs require a screen resolution of no more than 800x600. Looking around the office where I'm sitting at the moment, it seems that nobody uses a screen resolution this small any more. For instance, the laptop I'm typing this on has a 1920x1200 widescreen display, I have a 1600x1200 CRT sitting next to me, the guy to my left runs a pair of 15-inch TFTs at 1024x768 each, the dev team have 19-inch TFTs running at resolutions up to 1600x1200. I wonder if the list feels there is a minimum reasonable screen resolution to expect most people to be running at? Or is it better from a pure usability point of view to keep individual windows as simple as possible even if that means having to employ multi-page dialogs? Even a single step up from 800x600 to 1024x768 gives a 60% increase in available display area based purely on the total pixel count. I'm conscious of the temptation to try and fit ever more buttons, text boxes and other components onto a bigger screen, but at the same time I know from past experience that many end-users of software I've written are happier to have less clutter per window, even if that means having to click their way through more than one window to accomplish a particular task. Just a bit of random Monday afternoon musing, I'm interested to know if people have any strong opinions one way or another. -- Regards Phil Edwards Brighton, UK |