Perishable Press Quintessential Screenshot Gallery
Posted on October 7, 2008 in Perishable, Websites by Jeff Starr
One of my goals for the new Perishable Press redesign was to achieve cross-browser, pixel-perfect precision [ 1 ]. Of course, due to many variables (platform, operating system, browser, extensions, fonts, etc.), it is virtually impossible to achieve complete 100% perfection, but I am certainly interested in examining the design on as many different configurations as possible. Thus, last week after launching the new design, I made an open call for screenshots. Graciously, many of you responded with some great screenshots. Thanks to you, I was able to see Perishable Press “in the wild” on many operating systems and browsers to which I simply don’t have access. Sure, I could have just went to browsershots.com or some similar service, but as Rick Beckman correctly pointed out, it is much more fun to get everyone involved in the process. So without further ado, here is the Perishable Press Quintessential Screenshot Gallery:
- Mobile Browsers
- Macintosh Leopard
- Linux Ubuntu
- Linux Kubuntu
- Windows 98 & 2000
- Windows Vista
- Windows XP
Mobile Browsers [ ^ ]
Mobile Safari 2.0 on iPhone by Paul Walker
Internet Explorer on HTC 8525 Windows Mobile 5.0 (alt view) by Jeff Starr
Minimo on HTC 8525 Windows Mobile 5.0 by Jeff Starr
- Alternate Minimo Screenshot (header)
- Alternate Minimo Screenshot (content)
- Alternate Minimo Screenshot (sidebar)
Macintosh OS X Leopard [ ^ ]
Safari 4.0 Developers Preview on Mac OS X by Chris Coyier
Firefox 3.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.5.5 by Rick Beckman
Stainless 0.1 on Mac OS X 10.5.5 by Paul Walker
Safari 4 on Mac OS X 10.5.5 by Paul Walker
L.Y.N.X 2.8.7d9 on Mac OS X 10.5.5 by Paul Walker
Fluid 0.9.3.2 on Mac OS X 10.5.5 by Paul Walker
Fluid on Mac OS X by Jordan Ogren
Safari on Mac OS X by Jordan Ogren
Camino 1.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.4.8 (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Firefox 3.0.1 on Mac OS X 10.4.8 (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Opera 9.23 on Mac OS X 10.4.8 (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Safari 2.0.4 on Mac OS X 10.4.8 (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Paparazzi on Mac OS X (full page) by Christopher Ross
Linux Ubuntu [ ^ ]
Firefox 2.0.0.17 on Ubuntu Linux 7.10 by Lee Underwood
Firefox 3.0.3 on Ubuntu Linux 8.04 @ 1280×1024 by Adam Heckler
Firefox 3.0.3 on Ubuntu Linux 8.04.1 (full page) by Aldo
Firefox 3.0.3 on Ubuntu 8.04 Linux (full screen) by lazar
Firefox 3.0.3 on Ubuntu 8.04 Linux by lazar
Linux Kubuntu [ ^ ]
Firefox 2.0.0.17 on Linux on Kubuntu 7.10 by ALtJ
Konqueror 3.5.8 on Linux on Kubuntu 7.10 by ALtJ
Windows 98 & 2000 [ ^ ]
Opera 9.52 on Windows 2000 (1024×768) by Jeff Morris
Opera 9.52 on Windows 98se (1024×768) by Jeff Morris
Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows 98se (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Opera 8.54 on Windows 98se (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Internet Explorer 6.0.2600 on Windows 98se (1024×768) by Jeff Starr
Windows Vista [ ^ ]
Google Chrome on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (full-screen @ 1600×1200) (alt view) by Matthias Kretschmann
Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (full-screen @ 1600×1200) (alt view) by Matthias Kretschmann
Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (full-screen @ 1600×1200) (alt view) by Matthias Kretschmann
Opera 9.52 on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (full-screen @ 1600×1200) (alt view) by Matthias Kretschmann
Safari 3.1.2 on Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (full-screen @ 1600×1200) (alt view) by Matthias Kretschmann
Windows XP [ ^ ]
Safari 3.1.1 on Windows XP SP3 (1024×768) by Jeff Morris
Firefox 3.0.3 on WinXP Media Center SP3 (1280×800, full page) by Nyx
K-Meleon 1.5.0 on Windows XP (1280×1024) by nukeit
Firefox 3.1b1pre (CE build) on Windows XP (1280×1024) by nukeit
Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows XP (1280×1024 - full page) by nukeit
L.Y.N.X 2.5.8 on Windows XP SP3 by Johann Jacobsohn
Minefield 3.b1pre on Windows XP SP3 by Johann Jacobsohn
Safari on Windows XP SP3 by Jordan Ogren
Google Chrome beta on Windows XP (1680×1050) by Joshua Richardson
Internet Explorer 8 beta on Windows XP (1680×1050) by Joshua Richardson
Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows XP (1680×1050) by Joshua Richardson
IE 8 beta 2 on Win XP Pro SP3 (JavaScript disabled) by Myra R
Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows XP Pro SP3 (JavaScript disabled) by Myra R
Google Chrome on Windows XP by Mateo Yadarola
Firefox 3.0 on Windows XP by Mateo Yadarola
Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP by Mateo Yadarola
Opera 9.5 on Windows XP by Mateo Yadarola
Safari on Windows XP by Mateo Yadarola
Thank you!
Many thanks to every who helped by sending in their screenshots! Cheers! :)
Note: please contact me with any corrections regarding the screenshots and technical information presented in this article. Thanks!
- 1 That is, as many browsers as possible except Old versions of Internet Explorer. [ ^ ]
Huh! There are so many!!
Can you write a summary of which ones more or less work, and which ones do not?
Thanks
wow! gnarly. i really liked the old one (but who cares, thats all relative)…..but wow. aside from having a gnarly-content filled site, you really make some sick ish! thanks for sharing.
I’m not a fan of the new design. The background makes in very hard to read and concentrate on anything but the background-
Hi Frida, I completely understand. Obviously, designs can’t appeal to everybody, so I continue to provide many other themes, including the previous dark design. Thanks for chiming in — it’s always good to hear a variety of responses ;)
I guess it’s time to level with you Jeff.
You need to re-visit your policy on the disparate subsets of content you’re trying to provide. Discriminate between your info sites and your arty sites, and act accordingly.
Your new design is certainly artistic, even gorgeous, but frankly it’s a hindrance to the literate info-seeker’s comprehension - you know, the sort of people that will come here to discover shit they never knew. In my view, that is. Try to avoid adding to your visitors’ workload just so they can read your excellent content. They’ll just give you the big swerve, which would be an even bigger shame.
You cannot be all things to all men (sexism unavoidable, it’s someone else’s quote). Light ink on dark paper is ‘utter fail’ in new markets that seek only information; like ‘how-to’, and stuff like that. I do some work in the education sector, so I know.
Your site(s) reek with the stench of this very valuable and much sought-after stuff. I repeat, you need to discriminate. Don’t spoil the ship for a hap’worth of tar.
And I wish you the very best with the re-design. It’s awesome. ;)
Hi Jeff, honestly, you raise a good point about the apparent difference in presentational styles between “informational” sites and “arty” sites as you call them. I have been around awhile, and certainly know what you’re talking about, yet I prefer to do my own thinking when it comes to design, informational architecture, and stereotypes.
First of all, I think the main reason that you see informational sites that are so dry and boring (but, yes, easy to read!) is because their designers either prefer it that way, feel compelled because, as you have observed, “all informational sites are like that,” or else some combination of both of these reasons.
For artsy-fartsy sites, there is a much stronger desire for personal expression and individuality which unfortunately suggests that the designs are creative just because that’s how all artistic sites should look.
As for me, I may recognize this apparent design dichotomy, but I certainly don’t surrender to it. I embrace both sides of sides of my brain, the creative and the analytical. The challenge for me when it comes to designing a site that I can live with involves synergizing these two mentalities into a unified design that appeals to both. Not easy, but I continue to do my best with it.
I do appreciate the sincerity, and would remind you (and anyone else who finds the current design too difficult to read comfortably) that I maintain a wide variety of different themes from which to choose. Thus, there is not reason to live in agony! ;)
@lazar: yes, I know! I was surprised at how many screenshots were sent in as well (you would not believe how much time I spent on this post!). As for a nice summary of which designs work and which don’t, that is a great idea, and so I will try to do that here and now while the information is still fresh in my head.
Overall, I would say that most browsers display the content satisfactorily. There is of course a big difference between the way PCs and Macs display text content, so I don’t need to elaborate on those differences. Personally, however, I can’t stand what Macs do with text display. They make text look completely fat and bloated, and I really despise it. Anyway, let’s move on..
There were also differences in the
boldversuslighterproperties as applied to heading fonts on Linux Ubuntu with Firefox. Namely, if you look at some of the screenshots, you will see that thelighterpost title headings appear much narrower than on any other system/configuration. Also interesting is that the default font used, Trebuchet MS, does not seem to be available on certain Linux machines.Aside from all of that, the design works great in almost every browser I could get my hands on (figuratively speaking). One notable exception here is Opera 8.54 on Win98SE, which just looks terrible; the layout is completely whacked out beyond recognition. I don’t know if this is an issue with Opera 8.54 on old Windows, or Opera 8.54 in general; and, I have yet to examine the site on even older versions of Opera.
Other notable observations include K-Meleon 1.5 on WinXP. The transparent PNG used for the header logo is surrounded by a wide black band of non-display. And finally, on a positive note, thanks to Paul Walker’s iPhone screenshot, I was able to see just how remarkably and accurately that device (and browser) are able to display the new design. It really is impressive, almost to the point where I want to throw some money at one of my own. ;)
Anyway, I hope that helps give you an overview of the experience without having to spend countless hours on it like I did. Let me know if I may answer any other questions about all of this. Cheers!
@jalbert: thanks for the kind words — I am stoked that you enjoy the new design! :)
What theme is shown in these screenshots. This was the first theme i saw when i came to this site but it changed to another one how can i get this one back?
Hi Cody, a couple of ways to reset the default stylesheet; either clear your cookies and refresh the page, or click here to set the new theme (this method returns you to the home page).
Happy to have helped! Love your site.
The new design is unique that’s for sure but it’s a bit too busy for me. I find myself looking away from what I’m trying to read when a design or color catches my eye. Love what you’re doing but just feel the background needs to be down toned just a bit. But that’s my opinion.
Hi KeeKee, Thanks for the feedback! I know the site’s appearance is heavy on the eyes (too busy, too dark, etc.), and so I have set aside some time this week to work on improving some of these usability issues. Until now, I had been thinking about improving readability by increasing the opacity of the content panels, but now thanks to your comment I may also try toning the background image itself down a notch or two. Thanks for the excellent advice ;)
@Jeff Star
Mac OS fails badly when it comes to light on dark text, its sub pixel rendering was clearly optimised for dark on white. That’s why the texts looks rather bold/awful on the OS X screenshots. There are ways to stop OS X using subpixel rendering for your site, such as setting text-shadow to #000 0 0 0. Minorly hacky, but it helps.
OS X will still render the text thicker than windows, but this is because windows itself renders fonts thinner than they are, at small sizes (it tries to make strokes exactly 1 px in width, when most fonts are over that at this size).
@Paul: I was unfamiliar with the
text-shadowtrick.. I will definitely be trying it out. Hopefully it will provide some relief. Does it affect text-rendering on all Mac browsers, or just Safari? I am so used to looking at Windows-rendered fonts that Mac rendering always frustrates me. I would simply make the fonts smaller, but then there are other issues.. In any case, thanks for the tip!