1.
1280x1024
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
28.65%
2.
1024x768
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
17.12%
3.
1680x1050
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
15.63%
4.
1280x800
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
13.29%
5.
1440x900
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
8.25%
6.
1920x1200
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
5.61%
7.
1400x1050
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
4.12%
8.
1600x1200
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
2.48%
9.
1152x864
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
1.64%
10.
1280x768
<
https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr...
1.09%
Stats from our docs server
Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
Am 15.02.2009 um 21:15 schrieb Joseph Marques:
> the dual monitors i do my primary development on are standard aspect
> ratio (though, my resolution is 1600x1200). yes, there are a
We should cater for people with 1280 px in screen width. The following
is from the web server of one of my domains:
1280*x makes 45% of all views and 1024*x makes for another 23%.
1280x800 29.9 %
1024x768 23.5 %
1280x1024 15.9 %
1440x900 8.2 %
1680x1050 7 %
Others 15.2 %
One may estimate that IT ops have the big screens, but we should not
count on it.
> lot of tabs, but i'm less worried about the quantity of data shown
> than i am about the placement of data and how intuitive things
This lots of tabs worries me. And the lots of meicoa icons
> would be to find. case in point: microsoft word is a "busy"
> application with it's ten or so default menus, and the 40 or so icons
> on the two default toolbars, but having access to all of those things
> at a glance because of they properly named and have somewhat
> intuitive icons to identity what they do helps tremendously. i could
> see us in the future perhaps even replacing the text of "monitor",
On the other hand, there are many people out there, that especially
see Word as the prime example of complete
feature overload.
> "events", "configuration", "operations",
"alerts", "content" with
> more easily recognizable icons altogether (or maybe that would be a
> user option [icon+text vs. icon-only vs. text-only]).
Icon only is bad. There are a few standard icons (e.g. disk symbol to
save), but otherwise most of time the same icon
has three different meanings in two programs.
>> But - if we are to add a new tab, I do like the idea of a summary
>> tab. That should probably be the landing tab when selecting a new
>> resource from the Browse Resources (or any link when moving from a
>> page without a resource in context).
> i would agree, it would be an ideal place to place links that don't
> explicitly navigate to one of the other tabs via the "mica" icons.
Yes indeed.
Adding the display timerange there would allow to see historic data.
RHQ-1496 has code to dynamically load availability
data and to autorefresh the timeline, so that users could change the
range and a refresh of the timeline would show the
right stuff.
Simile also has a tiemeplot library, that is timeline + graphs, so one
could even put some indicator charts in it.
Heiko