🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> wrote in message
news:3ca853f0.1524369@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:43:36 -0500, "Jim Davis"
> <newsmonkey@vboston.com> wrote:
>
> >From a usability perspective however the point is moot.  The abilty to
> >enlarge a window bigger than the screen res IS there, but the number of
> >people that do it out of 10,000 can be counted on a leper's bad hand.
>
> Apart from those people with multiple monitors, where the screen size
> reported (in most implementations) is that of the primary monitor,
> whereas the browser maybe on a secondry monitor which has a larger
> resolution...

Although I'm a booster for the multiple monitor crowd (being part of it)
it's such a small percentage that it can (unfortunately) be ignored for
this.  Also even with multiple monitors people will VERY rarely span
applications (especially a browser) across both (some applications are more
prone to this, but not browsers) as it becomes much harder to read.

I actually mention the "browser reports" problem (I consider it a bug) in my
Res Stats page.  Almost always the reported resoltion is the larger of the
two (since the inclination is to use the "better" monitor as the primary).

> >> So how is it relevant, and what do you do with it once you get it?
> >
> >Screen resolution alone is relevant in some ways.  I made some statements
> >further up the thread:
> >
> >"Resolution is an inidication of monitor sizes (it's NOT monitor sizes)
and
> >can thus be used as an indication of usage/buying trends.
>
> I still don't see the relevance to web authoring, unless you happen to
> be authoring a site about monitor/graphics card sales, and can't use
> any of the many more accurate methods of getting data...

Not to authoring, but to site development and marketing.  Note that I make
NO claims that the data I provide on my stats is relevant to web authoring.
(Well, it is the in the "Web Design" section, but I hope we're friendly
enough to to nit pick to that level!)  ;^)  That's actually something I've
been very careful about specifically for the reasons in this discussion.

> > Certain
> >resolutions are so device dependent (for example 320x240) that they can
be
> >used to indicate the audience using that device (in this case PocketPC
style
> >handheld devices).
>
> Except of course the script doesn't work on any handhelds I know of
> (Opera in Nokia communicator maybe...)

My PocketPC does (PPC 2002) and as the market advances I hope that more
will.  PocketPCs have a 320x240 res (1/4 VGA).  Palms, which are much more
prevelant but lack the out of box browsing capability of the PPC are even
smaller.

> >A group using predominantly very large
> >resolutions can, at this point at least, be considered more technical
than
> >groups made up of lower (but not lower than 640x480 which would indicate
> >handheld users) resolution users."
>
> Rubbish... Screen size is one of the differentials that PC companies
> use to sell their equipment (like processor speed) so your high street
> salesman selling is just as likely to be running 1280x1024 as anyone
> else IMO.

I agree that non-technical folks can buy big screens.  Screen size may be a
selling point but only wealthier/technical users will buy them.  They are
still expensive and even wealthy people won't spend money on something they
don't use.  So the likelihood - nothing more than that - is increased that a
high-res audience is more technically inclined than a low-res audience.

However this is definately becoming less of an indicator than it used to be
as costs come down for larger displays.  But look at almost all computer ads
from the big sellers (Dell, Compaq, etc) and you'll still see 15"/17"
screens standard with upgrades to 19" and maybe 21".

Keep in mind that these aren't "rules" - they're indicators.  Nothing more.

I've a theory: "Cold Reading for the Internet".  "Cold Reading" is the skill
of combining observation with statistical data to "magically" know something
about somebody.  It's how fortune tellers and scum-bags like John Edwards
convince people that they're magical and how good salesmen and entertainers
become successful.

When a cold reader guesses correctly it's a "hit" and when they guess
incorrectly it's a "miss".  The key is to accentuate the hits and forget the
misses (which people are SO VERY happy to do).

This concept can be applied to the Internet.  The basic idea is that you
gather as much data as you can and link it to the person.  You then put
together statisical assumptions.  For example a web store might present more
technical specials to those with larger monitors.  Those that actually are
more technical will be pleased, those aren't will probably not notice at
all.  Amazon.com has these concepts down to an art form in the retail arena.

The problem is that you get very little information on the web.  When you
walk into a car dealer the salesman sees your shoes (or workboots), your
clothes, wedding ring, etc.  He can feel the calluses (or lack of them) in
your handshake.  He can pick up on your education by how you speak.  If you
come in as a couple he can tell in the first 5 seconds whose in charge.  You
don't get any of that on the web.

So you make do with what you CAN get.  Your data is slimmer so your
assumptions/conclusions must be broader, less focused and less likely to
insult the user on the misses.  But you capture EVERYTHING that you can get
just in case it might become useful later.  Many times companies are asking
questions already but not capturing the data.

For example many places that present streaming video ask which bit rate
you'd like to use.  But they DON'T capture the data to better present other
things.  Many ask for zip code but don't apply it to common statistical
information (urban/suburban/rural, educational indexes, etc).

Again this stuff isn't "answers" it's just indications of shadows of
possible answers.  Something to give you a little extra edge when making
assumptions.  This is why I argue when people cry "irrelevant" - no scrap of
information gleaned about the user is irrelevant in my opinion.

Also note that for what it's worth I think that the stats I present on my
site are more useful for their correlation to color depth.  I agree that
monitor res alone is a fairly (but not totally) useless metric, but it does
have it's uses (and is VERY very to collect) and can be used in conjunction
with other data to flesh out the image of the user.

> >I would LOVE somebody like Yahoo to take this job on seriously and do
some
> >good reports on what they can gather.
>
> They're useless though, they're expensive, and there are privacy
> issues - what you actually want is CC/PP to come to fruition and then
> you get accurate information...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean Yahoo as a service for web masters, I meant Yahoo
publishing the data about Yahoo.com.  In other words information about
people visiting Yahoo.

Of course it would have to be done well (which is unlikely considering the
current state of affairs) but IF done well would be invaluable to the web
community.  And not just Yahoo of course, but any large property.  A small
handful of sites (note more than say, 500) dominate the landscape of the web
and account for a HUGE percentage of total traffic.  Yahoo is definately one
of them.

If we could see good metrics on the visitors to Yahoo (and it's properties)
we could get a very good (if not the best) impression of the total community
of web users.

There are some people trying to do this (Nielson for example) but they
charge outlandish fees for their data (good as some of it is).  However they
are also supporting a VERY complex infrastructure (Nielson installs a
client-side monitoring application that tracks EVERYTHING you do).  Yahoo
would benefit the community simply by publishing the data it's already
gathering.  If it could add some of these script-tricks to it, all the
better.

The idea here is to broaden the response range.  I can get very detailed
information from 20 people by doing exacting usability studies.  I could get
decent information from a 1000 people by doing a phone survey and I could
get VERY rough information from millions of people by tracking visitors to
Yahoo.

A big problem is that almost all the sites that publish this kind of
information are geek sites (like mine).  Getting a Yahoo or a Google to do
it would show us good, general figures.

Jim Davis
--
President, Depressed Press of Boston:  http://www.DepressedPress.com/
Webmaster, Virtually Boston:  http://www.vboston.com/
Webmaster, First Night Boston:  http://www.firstnight.org/
Senior Consultant, Metlife eCommerce IT:  http://www.metlife.com/