Screen test (the results): I have a theory about readers of blogs, which is that if a blogpost doesn't show up on screen when a visitor first arrives, they'll probably never read it. I'm talking about a typical, casual visitor, of course. I know that you, dear reader, analyse everything that bloggers post with a ravenous voracity. But most readers are passive transient beings, and if something's not obvious right at the top of the page then they'll move on without noticing it was ever there. A consequence of this is that the optimum size for a new blogpost is no greater than one screenful. Any longer and the next post underneath disappears, and most readers won't ever discover it because it's too much effort to scroll down and have a look. And if that's true, then I'm wasting my time writing an increasing number of long posts because a diminishing number of people are reading them. Yesterday's interactive survey was therefore to discover how big 'one screenful' actually is. And I discovered that it's rather smaller than I was anticipating...
Screen width (the results) • 2% of blog readers don't see this sentence as a single line of text. • As many as a quarter of blog readers fail to read this sentence as a single line of text. • Approximately 40% of you are able to read that last sentence without a line break... but not this one. • About a quarter of you use browsers or screen resolutions allowing you to read this sentence in a single line of text. • Only 20% of blog readers (including myself) can read this long sentence all in one go without the end dropping onto the next line. • And just 3% of blog readers appear to be using a screen width sufficient to read the whole of this sentence in one single line with no line break.
Blimey that's fascinating. The most popular screen width in yesterday's results came from the 40% of you who could read 209 on the top row but not 220. You'll be the people with the 1024x768 screen resolution, I suspect. The 1280x1024 crowd provided a second, smaller peak, able to read as far as 225 but not 226. And that's how I view my screen, but I must now remember that 80% of you are viewing something narrower than what I see.
Screen depth (the results) • 10% of you could see no further than the first paragraph of those telephone exchange codes, the '200s'. You're really not seeing very much of my blog (or any webpage), are you? • Another 10% of you were able to see into the '300s', but not the '400s'. • One third of you had the most common screen depth, with the '400s' paragraph right at the bottom of your screen. A last code somewhere between Gypsy Hill (447) and Greenwich (473) was pretty typical. But you lot are only seeing half as much of my blog in one go as I can see. • One third of you could see into the '600s', or beyond. • Only 20% of you reached the '800s', and you're the people who view my blog pretty much as I see it. We're in the minority, though, and most people see significantly less. • 2% of you claimed to be able to read all the way down to 942. What the hell were you reading this blog on, a cinema screen?
