Design for Retina display

cheif kaiser

I am having a new website designed which was marketed to me as being a responsive website. However when the designers later requested images from me they requested a size which was quite small. When I queried why they were not looking for better quality so as to optimise for Retina display, I receiving a whole load of non answers.

Is it not now standard procedure for website designers to optimise all sites for Retina or any high resolution density display? I would have assumed that designers would have to keep up with technology and to design a site in 2014 that is not Retina compatible is a little ridiculous?

Graham

cheif kaiser wrote: »

Is it not now standard procedure for website designers to optimise all sites for Retina or any high resolution density display? I would have assumed that designers would have to keep up with technology and to design a site in 2014 that is not Retina compatible is a little ridiculous?

There is no 'standard'. Although it's increasingly common to get a responsive design it's probably less common to get retina enabled designs.

If something is important to you, you should mention it or include it in the spec. You can hardly be upset when a designer doesn't deliver something you didn't ask for.

tricky D

Retina is only in the very early stages of adoption. It will become a lot more common in the market but that'll take time. It's kind of at the same stage responsive design was 3 or 4 years ago.

cheif kaiser

I would have assumed that the definition of responsive would have to include it being responsive to retina.What if I was later told it's not responsive to iphones because I didn't specifically ask for that. Would that not be the same thing? Seems daft to me to pay for a website now that is basically going to be outdated in a year and will look rubbish on anything with a high definition display.

Graham

Responsive is not the same as retina ready, I'm afraid you assumed incorrectly.

Talk to your web designers, I'd be surprised if they refused to quote you for the additional requirement.

cheif kaiser

Graham wrote: »

Responsive is not the same as retina ready, I'm afraid you assumed incorrectly.

That's debatable! Responsive web design (RWD) is a web development approach that creates dynamic changes to the appearance of a website, depending on the screen size and orientation of the device being used to view it.

I would think that serving up the correct size image for retina would also fit into this description.

Graham

cheif kaiser wrote: »

I would think that serving up the correct size image for retina would also fit into this description.

I would expect a responsive web design to serve up the correct size images. Serving HiDPI/retina images is not the same.

If you had commissioned a video to be made in standard/widescreen format would you automatically assume it would also be high definition because high definition TVs are becoming increasingly common?

Go and talk to your web designers and explain to them that you would like to add responsive images to the work in progress, ask them if this is a large job for your project and see what they come back with.

cheif kaiser

Graham wrote: »

I would expect a responsive web design to serve up the correct size images. Serving HiDPI/retina images is not the same..[/QUOTE.]

I respectfully disagree. You are serving up the correct size image to suit the device. For an iMac with retina you serve up a 300x600 image and for regular display you serve up half that size. The correct size for the correct device.

Graham

cheif kaiser wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. You are serving up the correct size image to suit the device. For an iMac with retina you serve up a 300x600 image and for regular display you serve up half that size. The correct size for the correct device.

Following your logic, a standard definition video is the wrong size for a high definition television. It's not, the image will just not look quite as sharp.

Why did you come here asking for an opinion when you are so absolutely convinced your position is the correct one.

Your web designers have obviously told you that you're wrong, I've told you that you're wrong and tricky d has explained how retina is at the 'early stage adoption' phase.

cheif kaiser

Graham wrote: »

Following your logic, a standard definition video is the wrong size for a high definition television. It's not, the image will just not look quite as sharp.

Following your logic, movie makers would still be making movies in regular definition for a high definition screen.

I did ask for advice, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Graham

cheif kaiser wrote: »

Following your logic, movie makers would still be making movies in regular definition for a high definition screen.

I did ask for advice, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Nope, movie makers ask for (and pay for) high definition versions of the movies/TV shows to be made. Some don't which is why you still get plenty of standard definition content. I doubt the people that commission the movies/shows just assume they will receive high definition versions for free.

You probably could browbeat your designers to include retina functionality. I suppose that would depend on the additional work involved and how much you'd like to continue to work with them in the future.

Good luck with your project.

Kenny Logins

cheif kaiser wrote: »

I would have assumed that the definition of responsive would have to include it being responsive to retina.What if I was later told it's not responsive to iphones because I didn't specifically ask for that. Would that not be the same thing? Seems daft to me to pay for a website now that is basically going to be outdated in a year and will look rubbish on anything with a high definition display.

Is this sitewide, as in the whole div/column layout and all images or just the banner/logo? I've only ever come across retina settings in a header, with the option to load a banner graphic or logo twice as large as the standard. Genuinely interested BTW, this is new to me.

cheif kaiser

Graham wrote: »

Nope, movie makers ask for (and pay for) high definition versions of the movies/TV shows to be made. Some don't which is why you still get plenty of standard definition content. I doubt the people that commission the movies/shows just assume they will receive high definition versions for free

Highly doubt that since high def screens are the norm. As by the way are the display on nearly every smart phone produced. High def phone/tablet are far from the early stages of adoption.

I see this as being the same as hiring a photographer to take pictures of your wedding and he hands you fuzzy images because you didn't specify that they should be sharp.

Thanks for you input.

smash

Graham wrote: »

If something is important to you, you should mention it or include it in the spec. You can hardly be upset when a designer doesn't deliver something you didn't ask for.

tricky D wrote: »

Retina is only in the very early stages of adoption. It will become a lot more common in the market but that'll take time. It's kind of at the same stage responsive design was 3 or 4 years ago.

I 100% disagree. When you design for mobile, you design for mobile. This includes retina because most screens are retina! It's only a matter of making 2x images or using fonts/SVG for images. It's really very very easy and it's a consideration that should be made by the designer at the start of a project!

cheif kaiser

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Is this sitewide, as in the whole div/column layout and all images or just the banner/logo? I've only ever come across retina settings in a header, with the option to load a banner graphic or logo twice as large as the standard. Genuinely interested BTW, this is new to me.

Logos and banners shouldn't be a problem if created as an SVG. It will not loose resolution no matter how large it is made.

It's more the JPG files that I am concerned about, which unless the file is double the pixels of what you intend to show, the retina display will double it anyway making it pixelated.

Which really is my point. All my images are high resolution to begin with and it would seem rather stupid to me to scale them down to say 400x400 only for the retina to scale them back up to 800x800.

Joe Doe

@2 Retina is actually x4 file load in real data terms (double width and double height) 200x200 (40,000px) becomes 400x400 (=160,000px surface area).

Not having retina won't impact severely on ux for latest pads, it's more of a luxury feature where speeds allow (south korea maybe).
iPad calling a fs 2048x1532 slideshow is even above big ole 24/27" leds running full F12 mode on HD 1920x1080...