<$BlogRSDUrl$>


Thursday, April 13, 2006

As Widely Seen on the Net... 

Too busy lately (re-engineering and consolidating the various Locus Online databases, in part) without any particularly urgent topics to discuss, to post anything in a while.

But I did want to note, for anyone reading this, that the Locus Poll deadline is just 2 days away. Despite the very fast start with poll responses this year, as of this moment we're still a bit behind the total responses of last year, though the rate of submissions in the last few days (10+ per day, accelerating toward the end) may make it up. It will be close.

One passing item for now: I've always tried to take design cues for the Locus Online homepage from the designs of various prominent professional sites... CNN, New York Times, etc. It's been interesting to note that in the past couple weeks both of those sites, not to mention my local NBC TV news station site, have increased the width of their sites to something on the order of 980 pixels. (The current Locus Online homepage is 800 pixels wide.) It's to take advantage of the increasing use of large screen monitors, the NYT editor noted, fairly enough. I observe this with interest, though I have no thoughts about expanding the Locus Online homepage size anytime soon. I'm reasonably happy with the homepage layout at the moment, and since there's a significant portion of the SF audience who, despite the futuristic, progressive theme of their literary interest, are in fact somewhat conservative in the actual practice of their use of new hardware and software, I've actually tried to stay rather a bit behind the breaking edge of website design for Locus Online. (Comments welcome, pro or con, as always.)
Comments:
Screen resolutions are increasing, but according to one source for screen resolution data, there are still a significant number of web surfers using 800 x 600 screen resolution (20% as of January 2006).

Source:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Do readers of science fiction and fantasy tend to be more technologically advanced such that they have higher screen resolutions? I'm not aware of this question being answered with statistics.

Mark
Chicago, Illinois
 
I'd personally prefer that Locus stays at 800 x 600, since it's the only resolution I can comfortably use with my extremely myopic eyes. I love the NY Times and CNN, but having to horizontal scroll over all the time now, is definitely getting on the annoying side. I wish more websites would realize that not all their readers want to or can use higher resolutions.

Jenny
Freehold, NJ
 
Post a Comment


king under the dome

doctorow makers

banks transition

kress steal sky

atwood year flood

roberts yellow blue tibia

wilson julian comstock

 ness ask and answer

collins catching fire

collins hunger games

sawyer flashforward

baker hotel

disch proteus

tan tales

mazzucchelli asterios

zebrowski empties

morrow shambling

hamilton cpt future

beckett genesis

meller evo rx

bsg2

kurzweil transcend

sawyer wake

ness knife never letting go

barzak love we share

mcewan cement garden

holland sci-fi art

gladwell outliers

bittman food matters

baggini what's it all about

Still in progress:

ross rest is noise

aldiss billion year spree

pollan omnivore's dilemma



Mark R. Kelly
Profile
Email

The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of Mark R. Kelly, and do not reflect the editorial position of Locus Magazine.
Locus
Links
Latest Posts
Archives

  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?