|
Welcome
Guest
|
Register
| Login
|
|
|
| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Online | User List | Help |
Killersites.com Forum
Misc Forums
Web Design News
Thread: Web Stats
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 7
|
|
| Author |
|
newseed
Advanced Member Joined: Apr 2, 2005 Post Count: 2141 Status: Offline |
I found this one to be more accurate because it gets it's data from hundreds of websites around the world. Web Statistics ---------------------------------------- Success is based on how much you spend. If it's not money, then the alternative is your time. The Kasper Group |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
Is there a story behind your new avatar? ROFL I am surprised to see FX2 is higher than FX3. I am not surprised about XP and Vista, top bad it does not specify Service Packs as that could clear up the IE6 & IE7 numbers. People, take note of the Resolutions. I keep seeing people claim that higher resolutions are now primary... not according to this by almost Half. Wonder if Chrome is to new or they did not bother with the stats for it... or is it camouflaged as another browser? Anyone ever expect to see IE just scraping up a bit over half the market share? Awesome! ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by LSW at Nov 25, 2008 10:46:50 AM] |
||
|
|
newseed
Advanced Member Joined: Apr 2, 2005 Post Count: 2141 Status: Offline |
Is there a story behind your new avatar? ROFL I was in the middle of redesigning my website and thought of having this image on my home page as a sales pitch. I remember how proud I was with my first website only to be embarrassed later because I didn't know better which is the reason for the paper sack over the head. Besides, I got tired of the fox getting fat from eating IE. As they say, "You are what you eat." I am surprised to see FX2 is higher than FX3. It makes me wonder where the percentage of FX2 users are located? Does one language version takes longer to receive the newer update or does a good number of people have their auto-update turned off and are content with what they have? As for me, I did not move up to 3 until 3.0.2 was released all because I like to wait until most (if not all) of the kinks are worked out. I am not surprised about XP and Vista, top bad it does not specify Service Packs as that could clear up the IE6 & IE7 numbers. At least we all know that XP is still dominant. I wonder just how many XP users still have IE6? People, take note of the Resolutions. I keep seeing people claim that higher resolutions are now primary... not according to this by almost Half. I would think the next level will be 1280 because of the widescreens that are dominating the sales market. However, I don't it will be safe to design for 1280 until several years later. Even then it may not be practical to design higher than 1024 because I tend to lose my place when reading long lines of text. Wonder if Chrome is to new or they did not bother with the stats for it... or is it camouflaged as another browser? Didn't Chrome come out in Sept.? What would Chrome fall under if it's not listed on it's own? Anyone ever expect to see IE just scraping up a bit over half the market share? Awesome! I have a few people tell me that IE is dead and they they will no longer design or cater to it. Based on the stats given, it's a poor judgment call on their part. If you do it right in FX, the chances are that you will have to do very little (if at all) to fix it for IE. Okay, I'm done. I'm going to go put my head back in the paper sack. ---------------------------------------- Success is based on how much you spend. If it's not money, then the alternative is your time. The Kasper Group |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
Didn't Chrome come out in Sept.? What would Chrome fall under if it's not listed on it's own? For many years IE actively encourage designers not to design for Opera, it gave tips that would break Opera. For this reason Opera began identifying itself as IE. This went on for years, allowing for the misinterpretation of Opera's market shares. It was higher, but as it was ID's as IE, IE got the numbers. "Sadly the statistics are undercounting Opera and overcounting Firefox. Opera has a better caching mechanism so it doesn't access Web sites as often as other browsers. Firefox has added a pre-loading feature that Google has made use of. This inflates the numbers on the statistics," von Tetzchner said, in an interview with ZDNet UK on Monday. Opera's caching mechanism is not the only feature that could deflate its marketshare. Opera is configured by default to identify itself as Internet Explorer, a setting that users have to manually change to allow Opera to identify itself correctly. - http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39204643,00.htm ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
I would think the next level will be 1280 because of the widescreens that are dominating the sales market. Is 1280 wide-screen? I think it's just a large normal screen. Wide-screen monitors are typically 1440*900 now so that size is getting very common. I've got one. 1440*900 is a ratio of 1.6 whereas 1280*1024 is 1.25 while other common sizes like 1024*768 and 800*600 are 1.33. ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. |
||
|
|
lwsimon
Advanced Member US Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Post Count: 396 Status: Offline |
Standard resolution for a low-end 15.4" laptop is 1280x800 (WXGA). Up a step from there is the oddball 1440x900 (WSXGA). WSXGA+ is 1680px wide. Don't forget the increasing market share of the netbooks, which typically sit at 800 pixels wide. To be safe, I make sure that my sites have no scroll bar at 1024x768, and all primary content is visible at 800x600. ----------------------------------------  Simple is better. |
||
|
|
tpattison
Advanced Member UK Joined: Dec 29, 2004 Post Count: 1662 Status: Offline |
To be safe, I make sure that my sites have no scroll bar at 1024x768, and all primary content is visible at 800x600. That's a good compromise that I'm warming to. I don't mind browsing sites that are wider than my netbook's screen. As long as I don't have to scroll horizontally to read a column of text then that's fine. Most sites are multi-columned and it makes sense to plan the widths of these columns to cater for (ever) diverging monitor resolutions around these days. ---------------------------------------- Pavonis Mons | Listen of the week: "Residue of Desire" by Acumen |
||
|
|
|
|
Current timezone is GMT Mar 21, 2010 4:48:42 PM |
