What's your technique? Why?

Discuss the future, present and past of sequential art.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Greg Stephens
Forum Founder
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact:

Post by Greg Stephens »

I draw on paper (rather tight pencils, then ink) and then scan at 300dpi greyscale. I now only do minimal cleanup in the computer (Corel PhotoPaint, because I'm used to it) before changing the image to a custom 16-shade grey palette and resampling to 72 dpi for .GIF export.

I like the immediacy and portability of working on paper (though I have done some work directly in the computer, I'm not comfortable enough with that yet to do it full-time), but the primary reason I work as I do is for speed. I used to do more post-scanning work (shading, lettering), but have gradually decided that my deadlines can more easily be met if I don't have to change tools as much. Keeping the images more black & white reduces file size (even though I cross-hatch rather than computer shade-- I also really like the look of cross-hatching).

Clean-up involves adjusting the image's gamma to make the pen truly black so that I can select it by color and cut all the pen to a new layer. The background can now be filled white to remove any stray pencil lines or smudges and the paper's grain. Pen and eraser tools allow me to correct any glaring mistakes I may have made. Occasionally, I've redrawn a panel and I can simply drop in a replacement at this stage.

When I do do any shading, I only shade with tones from my custom palette so that when I convert the image to that palette, it still looks as I intended. Because the pen is on its own layer (or is its own object, to use the Corel terminology), any shading can be done on a layer or layers in between the white background and the black pen.

Anyhow, them's the highlights. So, everyone else-- how do you work?
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.
Jack Masters
Consistant Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Jack Masters »

I work entirely in Microsoft Paint with a drawing tablet. Then I save as a bitmap and convert to a GIF in Paint Shop Pro, because if you save things as gifs in MS Paint, Netscape can't read them.

I stole the panel borders from some other online comic, because I don't know how to re-sample things to make them look nice.
<a href="Http://CastleZZT.net/">House of Stairs</a>
rcar
Consistant Poster
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu May 31, 2001 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by rcar »

Like you Greg I would draw in pencil then ink then scan. I use flash which is a vector program so then I would run the art through streamline then add color in Illustrator. Also the art would be piecemeal so I could use one background and have the characters change. Also I have the balloons change and use the same frame. My memory was very high because of all the anchor points created and found if I saved my art as gif the memory was about half. So now I use photoshop. I scan in the art, change the layer to multiply then paint the color on a layer under it. (multiply will only show the black and the rest becomes invisible).

In the Comicon forum I had a thread going with http://www.comicon.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000310.html Jeff Zugale who does Mystic for hire, http://www.pagancity.com/ He does everything in the computer and revealed his secrets. I tried it, but it did not work for me. I am trying to draw directly in the computer with a wacom table using painter. I will give it a try soon for it will save me some time.

Randy
http://www.mermbut.com
Tim Mallos
Understands reinventing
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Brighton, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Tim Mallos »

I'm still hunting for my preferred technique.
I've done a few pieces directly in Photoshop using a Waccom (like this <A Target="new" HREF="http://fifthdigit.com/comics/">4-panel piece</A> ). I like the Waccom a lot for color work, but I have to be sitting just right to draw a circle the way I want it. Pencils/ ink on paper are still much more intuitive.

So, for now, traditional comic penciling and ink pens on Bristol, scan, convert line art (playing with streamline now) and color / letter in Photoshop.

I like having the paper-based original line art too. I work in the Internet consulting world and it is a creepy thing to have all of your work inaccessible when the electrons stop flowing...

T
macclint
Forum Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Twin Peaks, Washington
Contact:

Post by macclint »

I do a very traditional style Adventure strip, so I generally pencil and then Ink with a brush.

I scan the panels into Photoshop, darken the contrast, clean up and then drop them into Freehand where I do all my lettering and most of my toning. I then export that file as an .eps. If it's one of my weekly strips, I then drag it to image ready for Web optimisation. If it's color, I drag it into Photoshop and make it into a transparent image on the top layer. Color (at 300 dpi) and then drag to Image ready.
Clint Hollingsworth
The Wandering Ones
macclint
Forum Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Twin Peaks, Washington
Contact:

Post by macclint »

Oh, and since I'm trying to put Wandering Ones out 5 days a week, my penciling has turned into little more than breakdowns.
Clint Hollingsworth
The Wandering Ones
glych
Frequent Poster
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: So' Cal, USA
Contact:

Post by glych »

First I chissle into sandstone...sorry...No, basically, I do quick sketches with pencil, then ink using the meintenance machines from hell (Rapidograph pens) size .005 for fine lines, and .3 for thick. and a good ol' sharpy forlarge black areas and a sable brush size 5 with india ink for the really big areas.

Then i scan at 300dpi, and play with the contrast and brightness controls until it look good to me, add a layer for text above the pencils, and a layer underneath (white background here too) for shading...this is for my "real" work...

for my fake work (No Stereotypes) I don't ahve the luxary of time to have fun with layers....that's done all in one shot (after brightness and contrast) of shading and letters....

I know. I'm unproffessional...so sue me

-glych
---
"I may not be able to move that rock, but -man- can I make that rock think it's been moved"-Corran Horn, Star Wars

Glych's Experiment
coffeekev
Forum Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by coffeekev »

Hello. This is my first post at this board. Interesting stuff here! I use a Wacom Graphire tablet and Photoshop 5.5 to create my "Coffee Spill" panels. No paper, no scanning. I just work in layers and build up the color until it's the way I like it and I can then present it to the world who will then pretty much ignore it. Speaking of which...please visit http://www.coffeespill.com and check out my style. I've been cartooning for years and got online last September, almost a year now. Any feedback is really appreciated, as it does seem incredibly difficult to get noticed in this crazy, wonderful universe of online cartooning!
Max Leibman
Consistant Poster
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Springfield, Nebraska (USA)
Contact:

Post by Max Leibman »

Kevin,

I laughed my ass off at that Vader cartoon (course, I just watched <i>A New Hope</i> and <i>Empire Strikes Back</i> last week, so I've had Darth Vader on the brain lately). You've definitely made at least one new fan here.

I have two comments:

First, a general question: your single-panel gags are great, and you're clearly a talented cartoonist. Have you done any actual comics (i.e., multi-panel work?) I'd love to see how you'd handle a longer, more narrative piece.

Second, a suggestion for the site itself: Get rid of the new-browser window links! Every time I click on a thumbnail, the cartoon pops up in it's own browser window. It would probably be best to drop that, and just have the links open in the original window. According to every study on the subject I've ever read about (which is, um, two, but still, that's more than most people have), the back button is the second-most used navigation tool in web-browsers (the first is links, if you're wondering). From this, we can infer that people <u>WILL</u> know how to get back to your main page. The new browser window takes more effort to close than just hitting the usually much-bigger "BACK" button, and meanwhile, it just clutters the desktop of the user. Those who really, truly want new browser windows will know how to open links in new windows on their own, too. Everybody else is just likely to be annoyed by them.

Outside of that, though, it looks great! Keep up the good work!

Peace out,

Max
coffeekev
Forum Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by coffeekev »

Max, thank you for your most excellent comments and suggestions! I plan on doing some multi-panel Coffee Spills in the near future. I don't have any actual comic book style projects going right now. I used to do a lot of that in my much younger days, but now I'm really into the single panel format. I'm open to working in any format, though, and who knows what the future will bring.

Secondly, thank you for the advice about the new-window links! I've been wondering about that since I first designed my site and you're the first person to comment on it. I'll definitely change those thumbnail links as soon as I get a chance. Right now, I can't do anything because my computer at home has a dead modem and I can't get online. That's also why there's not a new Coffee Spill this Friday morning, which is when the new ones are usually "served". I'm supposed to be taking the big leap to cable internet access this weekend, and I'm hoping that really helps to speed up the process of updating my site since I do it all myself in the wee hours away from my "real" job.

Thanks again for the encouragement and support!
User avatar
Greg Stephens
Forum Founder
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact:

Post by Greg Stephens »

I second the opinion that links opening in the same browser window are better than links that open a separate browser window, except in certain appropriate situations.

For example, I don't mind the Coffee Spill comics opening in a separate window, but it would be nice if you set it to be a smaller size window without any of the toolbars (as Zot!Online's installments do-- at least from CBR's site. Scott, can you make this work the same way from your own site?). The advantage to this is that I don't have to reload the comic index page each time I want to view a different comic.

Now on a links page, for example, I think opening new windows is a cardinal sin! Once I was browsing some site which opened any off-site link in a new window and I complained very loudly and in an insulting fashion to my friend sitting nearby about how this completely sucks and I hate it. My friend turned to me and said, "but my site does the same thing." What could I say? "It's still wrong!"

Edit: Speaking of which, I'm sure many of you've noticed that many links from this very forum open in a new browser window, but some do not. It's the difference between a link that's been written in a post by somebody using HTML v. somebody who wrote their link using BBcode. HTML seems to open the link in the same window, while BBcode opens a new window. Personally, I find this useful (it allows me to check out links and read the forum posts at the same time), but what does everyone else think?
_________________
Greg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Greg Stephens on 2001-07-27 12:06 ]</font>
ragtag
Consistant Poster
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by ragtag »

My page opens lots of stuff in new windows....but I guess I agree with it sometimes being a bother. I think material that takes a long time to download should open in a new window, such as film clips or pdf comics (in both cases you could also right click and choose save as). That way you can continue browsing the rest of the page, while you wait for the download. Though these windows should be the appropriate size.

For those interested in creating pop up windows, without all the menus and stuff, here is the html:

<a href="myPage.html" TARGET="myWindow" ONCLICK="window.open('myPage.html', 'myWindow', 'width=620, height=350, resizable=yes'); return false"> click me </a>

myWindow is the name of the window your new page will appear in. If you have several links that all use myWindow, they won't open new windows, but will display the material in the old myWindow. This would give you the options to have your strips show up in the same window, while you could browse through a list of them in another.

Ragnar

Guest

Post by Guest »

That's a great sample for opening new windows, because you do two things right:

ALWAYS set resizable 'yes'. The fact that browsers honor 'resizable' to 'no' is moronic. Unfortunately different fonts are different sizes, but windows are in pixel sizes, so unless your content has absolutely no text (some comics are just images, so it would be ok), people with large fonts can get the text cut off, with no ability to resize or scroll. (Similar things happen with frames.) I see this all the time on otherwise professional-looking sites, because I use larger-than-average fonts.

Second, always included an 'href=' for people with javascript off. I visit tons of sites where none of the links work, because they don't give a real href. (That's not to mention the sites that produce a blank white page if javascript is off.)

If you really want to open a new window even for people without javascript, you can use the way of picking frame windows, I think it's '_target=new' or something like that, even if you're not otherwise using frames.

Personally, I dislike links that open new windows, period. If I want to open a new window, I can right-click on the link and select 'open in new window'; if I don't want a new window I left-click. I prefer having that choice. Unfortunately that's a power user attitude; the average user doesn't realize that's a possibility, so if you think opening it in a new window is important, you have to force it on those users and hence all users. :(

Generally, opening in a new window is bad since it messes up the user's ability to do forward/backward navigation. Obviously it's useful at times, though.
John2two
Regular Poster
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Monroe, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Post by John2two »

Gulp. I'm a major user of links opening new windows when they take you off to another site from a large page.

The main thing that prompts me to use this technique is the size of the page with the link and the number of casual, reference links on that page. If the page points in a million directions, and represents a non-trivial time to reload, I prefer to open a new window. Prime example: the <a href="http://cmug.com/~john_scott/ic/microtab ... rotable</a> page.

So you folks find this revolting, huh? Maybe you can convince me to change my ways...

John
Max Leibman
Consistant Poster
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Springfield, Nebraska (USA)
Contact:

Post by Max Leibman »

I will say that the new windows thing is not a hard-and-fast rule. However, the only major application I find to be universally acceptable would be for links that take you to a page that is A). In an unusual file format (.pdf, for instance -- I mean unusual only in that the vast majority of web pages are not .pdf, not that .pdf is uncommon) and B). Large enough to take more than 10 seconds to download for most users. Even then, I think a line of text warning that the link (or that all links in a given section) will open a new window is a courtesy one should extend.

Otherwise, if users want a new page, because they think the link is trivial and just-barely worth clicking on, or they want to continue browsing the main page and avoid forgetting to come back when they get to the new page, or have something to do while the new page downloads, or whatever else, chances are they <b>WILL</b> have figured out how to open new browser windows manually (for me, on IE 4, and I assume most other browsers, too, you right-click on the link, then select the "Open In New Window" option. Incidentally, I use this feature all the time, but automatic windows tend to annoy the piss out of me, except on message boards. Some people here seem keen on droppig links that way, and that doesn't seem annoy me at all, because that's how the <a href="http://www.delphi.com/">Delphi Forums</a> always work, so I'm used to the idea that message-board links always spawn new windows).

From a philosophical standpoint, we can find more support for avoiding popping up new windows. The Internet is a user-driven network. We might WANT users to move through our site in a certain way, and we may feel they NEED to see this before that, or have this window open just this way, or force them to look at our gaudy main page before going to whatever specific bit of trivia on a secondary or tertiary page that they're really after, but the fact is, all of these strategies are WRONG. The Internet works off the principal of user control -- if users don't like it, they hit "BACK," or type in a new URL, or return to their homepage. There are literally millions of sites to choose from, and billions of hyperlinks among them. Users are used to controlling their destinies online. It's what made the Internet so attractive in the first place, and it's a crucial aspect of the online experience.

The minute you reach through the ether to sieze control of the users browser, you are violating that basic standard of Internet interface. When a new window opens, you've taken over a browser function that the user did not ask or permit you to. The majority of links open in the same window in which they were clicked. To do anything else is going against the general performance expectations. You are doing something extra to the user's desktop. They haven't opened a second window, and many do consider it rude when we tell them they ought to without asking first.

User control vs. Site control. That's the bottom line here. You're pirating their browser when you open a new window.

That's the best argument I have. Did it work, John? Any counter-thoughts from anybody else?

-Max Leibman

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Max Leibman on 2001-07-28 11:34 ]</font>
Jason Alderman
Frequent Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: All over the globe...
Contact:

Post by Jason Alderman »

I vote for standard links, since pop-up menus to put 'em in a separate window are standard to any browser, save lynx and Netscape 0.9 beta. :wink: Or just put a little text on the side saying it pops up a new window.

Back to the subject of the day, though: I used to draw everything by hand (with much more detailed work), but then I bought a Wacom Graphire and started drawing straight on the computer. I use Flash (which I've used for almost everything but .swf animation) because it has a great synthesis of "paint" and vector tools, with fantastic pressure-sensitivity support. I usually set up separate layers for rough sketches (with the pencil tool), inks, and shading or colors(behind the inks), and then just go from there. It took me a few days to get the hang of, but now I almost prefer it to pencil and paper.

jason
coffeekev
Forum Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by coffeekev »

This has been a fascinating discussion. This weekend I reformatted my site so that all of my cartoons now open in the same browser window, since everyone seems to universally agree that's the best way to do it. I also had complaints from other viewers that my pages were too big and they had to scroll left and right to see everything. These viewers all had their resolution set to 800x600. I can't imagine why anyone would prefer that monitor resolution. Everything looks so pixelated. I figured that most PC users just leave it there right out of the box because they aren't even aware of their options. But then I started hearing from all of these people who insist they prefer 800x600 monitor resolution. One web designer told me that your site should always be designed to fit within the confines of a browser window viewed at 800x600 resolution because most people see it that way. That's completely bizarre to me, but I went ahead and redesigned my pages to fit within the width of the browser window at 800x600. You still have to scroll down, but that's always going to be the case, it was the left and right scrolling I wanted to do away with. I would really appreciate any feedback on these changes. I'm happy with it on my iMac when I set it to 800x600. If any PC users could check it out and let me know how it's working at 800x600 resolution it would really help.
Guest

Post by Guest »

The smaller the minimum required size, the better.

Some people multitask, especially since the web is so slow, and the last thing they want to do is make their web browser full screen. I think the generally accepted logic is that anybody at 800x600 is going to have to live with full screen, but it should give you pause even if you think users are at 1024 or larger.

I run at 1600x1200 and like to have two pages up at once, non-overlapping, which means my windows are at most 800x1200. Except when I hit the occasional page which makes me drag them out wider. But for old-skool web pages, where the web designer has left it up to the browser to format the page, this tends to work pretty well. E.g. things like forums tend to come out really readable. Something like Zot! Online, I can perhaps see more of the page at a time than Scott was expecting, but it doesn't matter because he's not fixated on you seeing exactly a certain amount at a time.

I run at 1600x1200 mainly so that I get higher-resolution, more readable fonts. Unfortunately, since HTML measures things in pixel sizes, overzealous web designers are constantly making windows and frames too small for the actual size of my fonts--which are visually normal-sized, but large in pixel count. This leads to "professional-looking" sites with menu options going right off the edge of the frame or pop-up window, but they've marked the frame or window non-resizeable...
Jack Masters
Consistant Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Jack Masters »

I always assumed almost everyone used 800x600. Can we get the statistics for this somewhere?
User avatar
Greg Stephens
Forum Founder
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact:

Post by Greg Stephens »

According to my stats page:

<TABLE border=0 cellpadding=1><TR><TD bgcolor="#000000"><TABLE cellpadding=3 border=0 cellspacing=1><TR><TD bgcolor=white colspan=4><TABLE cellpadding=5 border=0 width=100%><TR><TD><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=4> <B>Screen Resolutions</TD><TD align=right><FONT color=dddddd face=arial size=4><B>Unique Visitors</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??1024x768??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??14386??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??42.69%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=250 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??800x600??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??8671??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??25.73%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=150 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??1280x1024??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??5499??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??16.32%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=95 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??1152x864??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??2976??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??8.83%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=51 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??1600x1200??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??823??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??2.44%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=14 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??Other??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??756??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??2.24%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=13 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR><TD bgcolor=white nowrap><FONT color=cc0000 face=arial size=2><B>??640x480??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT face=arial size=2><B>??580??</TD><TD bgcolor=ffffdd align=right nowrap><FONT color=000000 face=arial size=2><B>??1.72%??</TD><TD bgcolor=white><TABLE width=10 height=16 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><TR><TD bgcolor=9999FF><IMG src=t_s.gif width=1 height=1></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR></TABLE></TD></TR></TABLE>

<i><b>Edit:</b></i> Sorry about that big black bit at the top of the table- that's what I get for cutting and pasting strange HTML.
_________________
Greg



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Greg Stephens on 2001-07-31 11:48 ]</font>
buzzard
Frequent Poster
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by buzzard »

Is this a survey or are web browsers reporting this information somehow?
User avatar
Greg Stephens
Forum Founder
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact:

Post by Greg Stephens »

Web browsers pass this information on to the server when queried. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics (not being an incredibly techical person), but information such as what browser you're using, screen resolution, color depth, operating system can be passed from your browser to a server. (This is different than cookies, which only work from one specific site to your browser, and your browser will only return a cookie's information back to that specific site. Browser info, by contrast, is considered universal and will be sent to any site which queries it.) This sort of info is useful to determine what sorts of people are visiting your site so that you may tailor the design to the widest possible audience.

The tracker that generated this information for me is a free tracker from eXTReMe Tracking, which is pretty popular for this purpose. You can see the link which does this tracking on the lower right of my index page, and clicking it will show you my current stats. Most webhosts also provide much more comprehensive tracking (as does mine), but I like Extreme Tracking because it limits its statistics (at least in the free version) to only one page. In this case, my index page.

It's because browsers do this that a person can create a dynamic page which will display differently in different browsers (because they all have different quirks, though Opera and Mozilla both claim to be fully HTML 4 compliant). It even allows people to do such things as enforce Microsoft-Free Fridays. (And all that takes is something as simple as this bit of javascript.)
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.
buzzard
Frequent Poster
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 7:00 pm
Contact:

Post by buzzard »

One piece of data missing is how big the browser window is, although I <i>suppose</i> most people run fullscreen (although nobody I know does).
User avatar
Greg Stephens
Forum Founder
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact:

Post by Greg Stephens »

That, I think, may be nearly impossible to determine. And designers not only have to take that into account, but also how much room each browser's scroll bars, menu bars, tool bars, and other features remove from the display area. A monitor set to 800x600 can only reasonably be expected to have about a 760x500 window to display any given page. Much, much less if you're using a newer browser which makes use of a sidebar (IE 6, NS 6, Opera 5, any Moz).
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.
Locked