Is Apple.com's designer pissing anyone else off?

[chaos86]

Why oh why has apple.com's web designer suddenly decided that the homepage should be wider than a standard page? My browser is usually around 800 pixels wide (designers usually make pages 755px wide), but now to see the Mac Mini or MBP on apple.com I have to resize my browser? why? why cant they just continue the old 755 pixel standard or make a window size checking script? isnt apple trying to bring in more users? why alienate those with small screens or non-wasteful window sizing habits?

[Peyton]

I don't know:confused: when they first launched the new MBP they had a bigger intro page as well, but only for a couple hours. It shows up fine on all my monitors, I wouldn't say that it keeps anyone from buying a comp tho :rolleyes:

[lilstewart]

Yeah, i have noticed that. But... it's not enough to piss me off. :rolleyes:

[chaos86]

Yeah, i have noticed that. But... it's not enough to piss me off. :rolleyes:

not even on the ibook?

call me crazy, picky, and or a perfectionist, but as a web designer i see it as bad design.

Note to other designers: on 800x600 screens (28% of the internet using world), no browser when maximized holds less that 755x400 pixels. a designer should use that as a minimum when designing, unless youre using a non-static layout.

[Glenn Wolsey]

I believe they are going through an identity crisis right now, open 10 Apple product pages and take a look... :(

[EricNau]

Actually, I like the new page more.

[iMeowbot]

*shrug* That's a very Apple thing to do. The attitude shows up in their products too. They're quite willing to leave people behind it it's inconvenient to support them.

[chaos86]

I believe they are going through an identity crisis right now, open 10 Apple product pages and take a look... :(

lol, agreed. uniformity apple! come on! black for pro pages, white for consumer pages. and do something to make the navigation at the top match the black pages, like on the OSX page!

[Kingsly]

I didn't notice that before, being that I have a large monitor, but you are correct. What happened? I kind of like it filling my monitor, but I do see your point. ;)

[EricNau]

AKAIK, the most popular (non-widescreen) screen resolution is 1024x768 - which the Apple page fits perfectly on.

[Lau]

AKAIK, the most popular (non-widescreen) screen resolution is 1024x768 - which the Apple page fits perfectly on.

Ah, but although my screen is 1024x768 my browser window is more like 800x600, so I can see Adium and other windows behind it. Because I know I (and other people) surf like this I try to design sites to fit in 800x600.

[realityisterror]

I've got 1440x960, but those wider pages are enough to really piss me off.
The design should be dynamic if you ask me. It would accommodate more people. There's no real reason I can see as to why it should be so wide other than images, but most of the larger images are centered with a solid color on the sides...

I prefer to keep my browser at 800x600 anyway. Leaves me plenty of room for other work (or of course, other play)

reality

[Salasm]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app
2) Brushed metal and plastic UI
3) to name a few...

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:

[Chubypig]

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:

why does that bother you? am i missing something?

[kwajo.com]

it looks like the image editing inspector in iPhoto, what's wrong with that?

[skoker]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app
2) Brushed metal and plastic UI
3) to name a few...

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:


Why that's a poorly placed inspector window!

[chaos86]

why does that bother you? am i missing something?

just bad design. we know its not, but it looks like an error.

[chaos86]

Apple is definately not oblivious to dHTML (recently renamed AJAX by those newb (recently renamed noob by those elite (recently renamed 1337 by those annoying ppl) ppl) web 2.0 ppl).

I don't see why they couldnt have those 6 screenshots in CSS defined tables that are positioned based on a percentage of the window's width. À la, as the window is narrowed, the screenshots move inward, as the window is widened, they spread out; wouldnt that look cool (and probably get dugg).

[dornoforpyros]

eh I think we're getting to the point with web where it's OK to go outside that 755px box we'd all been using. I think it's pretty rare for people to be running 800 x 600...that being said, I still build for it out of habit.

[pianodude123]

doesnt piss me off with a cinema display!!!

[chaos86]

I think it's pretty rare for people to be running 800 x 600...that being said, I still build for it out of habit.

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

[corywoolf]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app
2) Brushed metal and plastic UI
3) to name a few...

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:

That's insane, I was looking at the exact same spot the other day and thinking the same thing! Guess it's not just me who noticed this.

[dornoforpyros]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.


doh! oh well, like I said, I still do build for 800 x 600 out of habit anyways.

[.Andy]

Perhaps it's just a conspiracy to annoy those still browsing at 800x600 so they bite the bullet and upgrade to a new mac with a higher res while they're at the site.......

[BakedBeans]

Personally I design for 1024x768, im sick of being restricted by such small sizes.

Its all about target audience too, exactly how many of those 28% are visiting apple.com on a regular basis? i would say less than the people that are viewing it on a 30 inch screen.

[Zenith]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app


Actually, the red button quits apps which have got only one window. System Preferences for example. There is a certain logic to that, but it is confusing because it isn't really obvious.

[redAPPLE]

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

was that done using css? or what method? looks like something i would like to implement next time.

[chaos86]

was that done using css? or what method? looks like something i would like to implement next time.

nothing was done with css or javascript. thats pure html tables baby. a real production would need css and javascript though (hint window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight return the pixel width and height of the window). i'm just showing how easy it would be to do a variable width layout.

Personally I design for 1024x768, im sick of being restricted by such small sizes.
Perhaps it's just a conspiracy to annoy those still browsing at 800x600 so they bite the bullet and upgrade to a new mac with a higher res while they're at the site.......

we've been through this above. my screen is 1280 wide, most others have similar or higher resolutions, but when websites or a particular website has fit in 800px wide browser windows for years, we all make our browsers around 800px wide (we dont maximize, we're mac users!).

[Bubbasteve]

doesnt piss me off with a cinema display!!!

lol yeah I would imagine... maybe Apple is just trying to show that the intel transition is a big transition? :o

Or maybe it's just bad web design, I dunno.

[macOSX-tastic]

i really really wish that OS X 10.5 is more consistent with UI styling and gets rid of brushed metal all together. at the very least, choose one or the other. i hope all windows aill look like iLife 06, it feels much cleaner to me. the inconsistency drives me mad sometimes.

S

[_bnkr612]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app
2) Brushed metal and plastic UI
3) to name a few...

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:

Bugs me too... I thought they would have caught that by now. I am sure the web designer was in a hurry and had to pick up their new 5 series BMW.

[redAPPLE]

nothing was done with css or javascript. thats pure html tables baby. a real production would need css and javascript though (hint window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight return the pixel width and height of the window). i'm just showing how easy it would be to do a variable width layout.

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

or css?

[eXan]

I personally like new page more. You know, the monitors has grown in size since Apple made there initial design.

[eXan]

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app


Use Command-Q

[chaos86]

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

just look at the source. theres a few tables, each is set to width="100%" so it scales with the window, and the cells inside it that don't have defined widths scale themselves too. save my file and edit it to border="1" on all the tables then look at it and it will make more sense. i dont have time right now to do the layers and stuff (finals, portfolio submission, work, other job, and a cranky fiancée)

heres the link from above (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html)

[chaos86]

You know, the monitors has grown in size since Apple made there initial design.

the point i was trying to make was that the rest of the web is scalable to 755 pixels wide, so portable users and screen real estate conservers tend to make their browsers that width.

[iGav]

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

or css?

you could do that easily in CSS as well.

[whocares]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

Noooooooo! Layout done with tables! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:






Ok, I read your subsequent post. You're forgiven. ;) :p :D

[mac.FINN]

Getting back to the apple website design...

Has anyone else noticed that the store page is lower than the rest and that there's a gap at the top? I don't mind the wider pages, but this gap is just irresponsibilty.

I say 'boo' apple web designer!

:D

[portent]

we've been through this above. my screen is 1280 wide, most others have similar or higher resolutions, but when websites or a particular website has fit in 800px wide browser windows for years, we all make our browsers around 800px wide (we dont maximize, we're mac users!). :D

[fowler.]

the internet crowd is probably the hardest to please, most anal group of people that I have ever seen. if there is something to complain about, they will.

i'm not saying apple is perfect, but honestly, is it that big of a deal to you?

the thing that bothers me the most, is the fact that they're still rocking the same basic layout that they have been for nearly 5 years. i think it's time to update a little bit. get away from the aqua thing and move towards the pro app/hardware style.

[fowler.]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

it's never going to make everyone happy. those of us with larger screens are going to wonder why they made such a narrow page.

[iShane]

What I dislike is the new design of their support pages.

[chaos86]

it's never going to make everyone happy. those of us with larger screens are going to wonder why they made such a narrow page.


yeah, i remember going into the apple store and pulling up a safari window on a 30 inch cinema display. the person on it before me was a switcher and had made it fill the screen; the ipod hifi looked really lonely in the middle there.

[aegisdesign]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this (http://thecreativechaos.com/testing/winwidth.html) together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

Dropped to 17% now in March. That's a big drop.

Apple's new design is 900px wide. There's quite a few sites now using 900px+ as a new width. See ArsTechnica, AListApart, I think Apple are just reflecting the tipping point where designers are using wider displays and relying on 70%+ of users having 1024x768 screens or greater. For their audience, I'd guess they're getting much higher than 70% > 800x600.

They're also using Flash a lot more, and in such a way that it's quick and well done too. I like their new design. Now if only they'd ditch the Aqua tab bar.

[Cloudgazer]

Personally I design for 1024x768, im sick of being restricted by such small sizes.

Its all about target audience too, exactly how many of those 28% are visiting apple.com on a regular basis? i would say less than the people that are viewing it on a 30 inch screen.

Are you guessing?
Are you saying more than 28% of people are viewing the site with 30 inch screens?
I seriously doubt that. 30 inch screens are not that common.
Unless of course, you're a web designer.
;)

If 28% of people are using 800x600, how many are using 1024x768?
I would think less than 28%.

I do agree that sites should be optimised for 1024 resolutions, but definately not more than that.

[dotdotdot]

MacRumors (and all forums) look horrible under 800x600 like Apple.com's "old design."

[chaos86]

MacRumors (and all forums) look horrible under 800x600 like Apple.com's "old design."

i disagree, but this is one of those things that you can agree to disagree about.

[BakedBeans]

Are you guessing?
Are you saying more than 28% of people are viewing the site with 30 inch screens?
I seriously doubt that. 30 inch screens are not that common.
Unless of course, you're a web designer.
;)

If 28% of people are using 800x600, how many are using 1024x768?
I would think less than 28%.

I do agree that sites should be optimised for 1024 resolutions, but definately not more than that.

What i am saying is.......

that 28% are running 15/17inch displays, a fair amount will be in the windows world (probably 80/90%) who will have hardly any interest in apple.com, where as people that buy 30inch monitors from apple probably view it a hell of a lot more than the 28% that think apple is just a fruit.

Of course, some of the 28% will and some of the 30inchers wont.


anyone know what percentage is 1024x786 EDIT its 61% (with 800x600 at just 17%)

interestingly, there are 350k users at 640x480.... should we design for those too? (that is sarcasm by the way)

[aegisdesign]

anyone know what percentage is 1024x786 EDIT its 61% (with 800x600 at just 17%)

interestingly, there are 350k users at 640x480.... should we design for those too? (that is sarcasm by the way)

To some extent, yes. Mobile phone screens are rarely even that big so at least an alternative small screen layout may be useful to some sites.

[WilMar]

To some extent, yes. Mobile phone screens are rarely even that big so at least an alternative small screen layout may be useful to some sites.

Buuut, when designing screen size issues, excluding a certain percentage of users becomes justified when you consider your own target segment. What that means is that Apple probably has a motive in creating a larger screen size site a little before total worldwide user adoption because who they're selling to is pretty much the top 20-25 percent of technology consumers. (even the non-switched) Those consumers tend to have a better pixel count on their screens and a larger sitewidth will adress them better, because the graphics just look better. If you can make the site dynamically adapt to everyones needs, fine, but often you'll still have an optimal viewing size. As for mobile sites... definite separate versions, with browser detection, IMHO often quite a nightmare:)

[virus1]

i like keeping it around 700-750, for both my browser and designs. i don't worry about verticals on my designs, and i just keep my browser full vertical.

but lets not forget how apple is going to redesign it for its 30th.

[chaos86]

i like keeping it around 700-750, for both my browser and designs. i don't worry about verticals on my designs, and i just keep my browser full vertical.

but lets not forget how apple is going to redesign it for its 30th.

just keep in mind that 400 is the vertical scroll threshold for maximized browser on 800*600. most users and robots will pay far more attention to what is above 400px.

[Butters]

but lets not forget how apple is going to redesign it for its 30th.

are they?

[redAPPLE]

you could do that easily in CSS as well.

really? how? :confused:

[thejadedmonkey]

really? how? :confused:
It's just defining div's with a width that's a % and not a fixed value. It's not hard.

As for mobile sites... definite separate versions, with browser detection, IMHO often quite a nightmare:)
If you use CSS it's really easy. It's all dependant on the CSS file that you have the page use, which is defined with the media="media_type" attribute of the external CSS link. For example, my father's site www.mahalaw.com has one look in a browser, but if you look at it on a phone it's hot the menu on the top, there are no images, but the phone loads the same page, just aa different CSS file.

[Les Kern]

I'll be the first to mention this... the main Apple web site is getting a bit long in the tooth design-wise... no... it sucks. As for the size issue, try that green button. End of conversation?

[raggedjimmi]

It's alright for me. Though I understand where you're coming from completely. It just hasn't affected me yet. Now. when I'm using my PowerBook and in 5 years time Apple no longer support G4's, I'll be angry then.

But 800*600? I have less than that viewing my site, and it being about free games I reckon that people with free time are viewing my site. free time people? people in the 1st world. my stats thing says that 800*600 accumulates 4% of my traffic. nothing below that.
But this is just my site. Though I believe in accessibility for all and that.

[elisha cuthbert]

All they need is a new site designer and then every thing should be sorted out or just a better design

[MacEffects]

While we are on the Topic of Apple.com how did they make it and what code/modifed code are they using on the site, I really want to know more about how the create, update, etc... I am sure they have the finest and most expensive programmers money can buy, but I was just wondering.