Only showing the most common values means that sizes of non-maximized windows are lost in the noise. It would be nice to see a cumulative size distribution that would show the percentage of viewport widths smaller than x, for various values of x. Then a developer could easily see that if they make the content e.g. 900 pixels wide, what percent of users will have to scroll the viewport left/right.
There's people here devaluing this because "AI probably built this page". To me this is a perfectly valid use of AI; "Hey I got this set of data points, give me a page with these 'extractions'". The page layout is the least interesting part of the page, it's the data points that should be of interest, then again this is where I think the page is lacking.
"1k real browser viewports" (page says 751 data points) tells me it's a quite small sample size to draw the amount of conclusions they draw. Now this is me guessing but I think it might be people actually visiting their site. Probably in the quest for viewport size, this might be why a whopping 6 percent of visitors appear to be visiting with their browser in full screen mode, and almost as many from a device with an 800x600 resolution (I can hear the device owners friend asking "man, what resolution are you running that thing at? Go to this site and check!").
AI report on actual data, not a problem. Low quality data to actually run that report on, now there's your problem.
I've never found it that useful to see a list of numbers of sizes. I can't visualize them quickly, and in the end the exact pixels doesn't matter, it's the various ratios.
I made this ~15 years ago. Took all the common phone resolutions at the time and scaled so that they all were similarly tall. Then it gave me a good grasp on what aspects my game needed to support. https://imgur.com/a/JT5JyyH
There's some sort of browser automation software that defaults to this resolution and it's used by bots a lot. I used to work for a company that built a bot filter for form submissions largely based around this one data point.
lol if you think the menu and native toolbar eating 160px is bad, you didn’t live through the 90s/2000s hell of bonzi buddy, yahoo search bar, and others, I remember people peeking at the web through a 120px slit, hilarious
Only showing the most common values means that sizes of non-maximized windows are lost in the noise. It would be nice to see a cumulative size distribution that would show the percentage of viewport widths smaller than x, for various values of x. Then a developer could easily see that if they make the content e.g. 900 pixels wide, what percent of users will have to scroll the viewport left/right.
There's people here devaluing this because "AI probably built this page". To me this is a perfectly valid use of AI; "Hey I got this set of data points, give me a page with these 'extractions'". The page layout is the least interesting part of the page, it's the data points that should be of interest, then again this is where I think the page is lacking.
"1k real browser viewports" (page says 751 data points) tells me it's a quite small sample size to draw the amount of conclusions they draw. Now this is me guessing but I think it might be people actually visiting their site. Probably in the quest for viewport size, this might be why a whopping 6 percent of visitors appear to be visiting with their browser in full screen mode, and almost as many from a device with an 800x600 resolution (I can hear the device owners friend asking "man, what resolution are you running that thing at? Go to this site and check!").
AI report on actual data, not a problem. Low quality data to actually run that report on, now there's your problem.
I've never found it that useful to see a list of numbers of sizes. I can't visualize them quickly, and in the end the exact pixels doesn't matter, it's the various ratios.
I made this ~15 years ago. Took all the common phone resolutions at the time and scaled so that they all were similarly tall. Then it gave me a good grasp on what aspects my game needed to support. https://imgur.com/a/JT5JyyH
Heads up, imgur is bust in the UK because their compliance people took the huff.
Why'd 800x600 be this popular? Is this some specific device? Is this 90s? Seems suspicious to me.
There's some sort of browser automation software that defaults to this resolution and it's used by bots a lot. I used to work for a company that built a bot filter for form submissions largely based around this one data point.
Probably Puppeteer, if I remember right its default viewport is 800x600 when you dont set it.
pretty sure its gonna be something like the default non-maximised window size on windows for chrome
Interesting information, but useful? No. You need to layout this way _no-one_ is excluded.
This is slop that looks like it was made with a single prompt
yeah the 1920 by 920 finding matches what I keep hitting browser chrome quietly eats the height and layouts built for 1080 start clipping
Exactly. Taskbars and browser chrome quietly eat 150px, which is why we now keep CTAs above 900px.
lol if you think the menu and native toolbar eating 160px is bad, you didn’t live through the 90s/2000s hell of bonzi buddy, yahoo search bar, and others, I remember people peeking at the web through a 120px slit, hilarious
Web development is such a mess man, it's all one bit hack trying to make programs out of documents
And sharing of scientific information, the original purpose of the web, is largely done using PDFs rather than HTML documents. Truly a big mess.
Blame the browsers for making it hard to download/store/view offline.
I mean, with modern CSS you can build good experiences very well. Responsive is not easy but also not impossible.
Computers are such a mess man, it's all one bit hack trying to make brains out of rocks.
Claude slop design. Untrustable.
Brought to you by Claude.