Client reports "fuzzy" / "broken up" appearance of type??!

JM
Posted By
Jan_Miele
Feb 19, 2008
Views
707
Replies
35
Status
Closed
I’ve been doing websites for some time now, and this is a new one for me. My client is reporting that the text in the sitewide header and footer, as well as any/all text that’s created in image files appears "fuzzy" or "broken up" to him on some monitors. He reports this effect is happening on a 17" monitor with 1280 x 1024 resolution. I have the same size monitor and same resolution of the display, and I cannot see any problems viewing the site on IE or on Firefox. I’ve viewed the site from my work and home computers (and the home computer is set to an even LOWER resolution), and I’m apparently not seeing the effect he’s seeing. All appears well to me.

The image files are generated using Adobe ImageReady using "smooth" or "sharp" settings for the text, and all are JPEGs generated at maximum quality, at standard web resolution of 72ppi. Settings: Quality 100, Blur: 0, and with checkboxes Optimized, Progressive, ICC Profile, and Preserve EXIF Metadata all turned OFF.

This is a complete headscratcher for me. I’ve of course explained to my client that text generated in image files will look somewhat "softer" than will body copy from text in the HTML of the pages, but he’s telling me the text in the image files on the pages look just fine on some of his computer monitors, and just fine if he prints them out, but "fuzzy" and "broken up" on others, specifically the 17" at 1280 x 1024.

See site-in-progress is posted at
<http://www.brn-management.com/janmiele/Mercer03/index.htm>

I’ve never had anyone mention this before. What’s going on here??

Any advice greatly appreciated!

—Jan

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

BL
Bob Levine
Feb 19, 2008
If they’re LCDs the MUST be run at native resolution. If that happens to be higher than 1280×1024 then that could explain the poor performance.

The text looks fine to me here.

BTW, take out the apostrophe in 1930’s. It should be 1930s.

Bob

Bob
I
ID._Awe
Feb 19, 2008
Looking just fine to me also, there is a problem at the client end.
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 19, 2008
Bob, thanks!
Agreed. Took the apostrophe out of the year . . . because it’s a plural, not a possessive. Client gave me that testimonial quote, and I transcribed it precisely as submitted, but you’re right about the point of punctuation. Just fixed it, and I hope the client doesn’t ask me to change it back!

So, if the client’s using a monitor that’s a LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), could there be some setting that’s been flipped in HIS computers that wouldn’t normally be the case for everyone else who’s seen this site so far and does NOT report this problem? I asked him to try viewing OTHER (any/random) websites with the problem-monitor and see if he’s seeing similar effects on other sites . . . so maybe it’s just HIS monitor or ITS settings? This is so odd!

How would he make sure the LCD monitors are being run at native resolution? Is this a setting HE can change??

What if he begins to think everyone’s monitor will display the site like this? I currently have no idea how I could generate these images any differently than they are now, hence: I have no "fix" for him!
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 19, 2008
From the display properties, settings tab. There’s a resolution slider. If it’s not pulled all the way to the right when using an LCD it’s not running native resolution.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 19, 2008
How would he make sure the LCD monitors are being run at native resolution?

their user’s manual will tell what the native resolution is. the info is usually listed on the website as well.

i.e. if it’s a nec, get the model #, go to the website for nec electronics, look up the monitor and check the user’s manual online.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 19, 2008
Dave,

I’ve NEVER seen a need to do that with an LCD. Just drag the slider all the way to the right and you should be at the native resolution.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 19, 2008
maybe, just saying that you can be sure by rtf(ine)m! 🙂
B
Buko
Feb 20, 2008
the header loaded real slow, looked good after it loaded.
I
ID._Awe
Feb 20, 2008
Got fibre optic cable, loads in a wink 😉
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 20, 2008
FiOS rules.

Bob
B
Buko
Feb 20, 2008
Id hate to be on dialup and view that page.
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Feb 20, 2008
Page looks great, graphic are crisp, but it’s not for slow dialup connections. I agree about the resolution of the client’s graphic driver being the likely problem. But you should recognize that some substantial number of web viewers may have the same issue.
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Hi, Folks!
Thanks to everyone for your feedback. We’re still looking into this issue, and the folks who are going to be hosting the live site are also investigating what could be causing the effect. The client now reports this:

"Here’s what I have found. I’m running version 7.0.5730.13 Internet Explorer and while I’m in the browser I have a zoom button down in the bottom right hand corner that defaults to 100%. If I select this and change the percentage to anything other than 100%, (i.e. 99% or 101% or 400%) the fonts look great. Only at 100% is the quality less than perfect…"

On the slow load for dialups or DSL, yes… The header is kind of a pixel behemoth. The Flash panel’s chubby, too. In the Flash project, I confined myself to text that was text (not rasterized or with any fade in/out transitions). Same with the photo images: optimized them to size before bringing them into the Library, then avoided all fade in/out kinds of Alpha transitions (tho I love those), to try to keep this image-heavy Flash file from chewing up loads of bandwidth.

Anyway, we’re still looking into the "fuzzy"/"broken up" effect, and as soon as we have a resolution, I’ll be happy to post it. For now, it remains a mystery. We’ve asked the client for a screenshot so we can better see what he’s seeing.
DM
Don_McCahill
Feb 20, 2008
then avoided all fade in/out kinds of Alpha transitions (tho I love those), to try to keep this image-heavy Flash file from chewing up loads of bandwidth.

I’m pretty sure that alpha transitions will only take up a few bytes of additional memory. If your Flash is large, it is due to the size of included images. Optimize those to make the Flash smaller.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 20, 2008
For now, it remains a mystery. We’ve asked the client for a screenshot so we can better see what he’s seeing.

did you ask them if they’re lcd monitors are set to native resolution?
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Okay, folks… Here’s one for you, actually. I used to use ImageReady to generate the HTML and imge files automagically out of the slices set up with all their lovely rollovers and such, for a nice table for a site header like this one, but I’ve had to abandon that because now ImageReady is generating nonfunctional HTML (i.e. rollovers defined in the ImageReady slices that aren’t working), and bits of odd and strange redundant, vestigial image files in the /images folder. What up with THAT??!!

This is how I ended up hand-generating and hand-building complex headers composed of numerous image files… because, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "You can *have* the code and the image files, but you can’t *use* the code and the image files." Not, at least, without putting on the programmer’s hat and fixing it.

I have ImageReady in both the 7.0 version AND the CS2 version installed, and CS2 seems actually to be buggier. This application probably has been superseded in CS3. If I upgrade to CS3, is there any hope?? Does Dreamweaver work any better there? To what has ImageReady evolved in CS3?
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Yes, I had optimized the individual image files as to pixel dimensions before I imported them to the Flash library.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 20, 2008
Is there some reason that you’re avoiding answering the question about native resolution? We’re trying to help but you’re not giving us much to go on.

Bob
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Yes, I did ask the client if they were using an LCD monitor, and passed along the recommendation, giving the client this advice:

"for LCD monitors, see the Display Properties > Settings tab and pull the resolution slider all the way to the right."

Was concerned that if I started talking to them about ‘native resolution’ their eyes would just glaze over. And besides, this site should "simply work" and be comfortably viewable on anyone’s computer within reason. Didn’t want to give client so many excuses and workarounds that it’d seem this was *their* problem! The site should be created so it’ll behave itself.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 20, 2008
Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works with LCDs.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 20, 2008
This application probably has been superseded in CS3.

no. image ready is gone in cs3.

And besides, this site should "simply work" and be comfortably viewable on anyone’s computer within reason.

as bob says, no. if the monitor isn’t at native resolution, stuff that’s supposed to be crisp will look all fuzzy.
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Hmmm… Okay, so how did the client’s monitor get into a state where it’s not "at native resolution," and what can he do to change/correct that? Gotta wonder how many other folks are there out there with their monitors in this state. And if so, how will websites look to them? Do they simply accept the appearance, or acclimate to it, or not notice?

I did ask the client to have a look at other sites on that computer and tell me if he’s seeing the same or a similar effect on OTHER websites as well, or if it’s just this one. He hasn’t gotten back to me on this yet.
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 20, 2008
Yah… time to upgrade, I guess.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 20, 2008
so how did the client’s monitor get into a state where it’s not "at native resolution,"

Probably never set up properly in the first place. Most people just don’t know any better. I have a side business for computer service and most people just think it’s normal for their computer to suck since all their friends feel the same way.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 20, 2008
so how did the client’s monitor get into a state where it’s not "at native resolution," and what can he do to change/correct that?

maybe someone wanted bigger fonts so cut the resolution from 1280×1024 (or whatever it shipped at) to 1024×768 or 800×600. etc.
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Feb 21, 2008
With many computers, neither the graphics card, the graphics driver, nor the OS seems to set the driver, by default, to its maximum resolution, which is the natural resolution of an LCD monitor. For that matter, the default setting isn’t necessarily even at the correct aspect ratio — it may be set to 4:3 (800×600 or 1024×768) when the monitor’s aspect ratio is 5:4 (1280×1024, very common in 19" monitors) or 16:10 (1680×1050) — causing the display to display images squished or spread out, with non-square image pixels. Every time I install a graphics driver update I get, by default, a resolution that is just plain wrong.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 21, 2008
which is why you read the manual. native resolution is usually listed on page 1.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 21, 2008
Or printed in 144 pt type on a big piece of plastic attached to the front of the monitor when you pull it out of the box. 🙂

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 21, 2008
nobody reads the "big piece of plastic attached to the front of the monitor when you pull it out of the box"! 🙂
I
ID._Awe
Feb 21, 2008
dave: I did. What does this mean to my life? Please help (you have been a bit of a scoffer recently, please take this seriously).
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 21, 2008
Yah. Hard to induce the client to pull out the manual for his monitor if he’s in another town and just doesn’t want to.

Harder still to convince him that just because this is happening to him, doesn’t mean it’s *not* happening to everyone else "out there" who might visit his website. Again I have asked him to look at other sites using the "problem" computer/browser combination to see if he’s seeing the same effect on other sites, or if it’s just this one site, and still no answer to that question.

This is what the client reports:

"Here’s what I have found. I’m running version 7.0.5730.13 Internet Explorer and while I’m in the browser I have a zoom button down in the bottom right hand corner that defaults to 100%. If I select this and change the percentage to anything other than 100%, (i.e. 99% or 101% or 400%) the font look great. Only at 100% is the quality less than perfect."

So, at my home machine, which is running that version of the IE browser, I tried various combinations of the "Zoom" setting (including the ones he lists) as well as other screen resolution settings and I don’t see anything eggregiously awry. Of course, Zooming a page to 400% *will* naturally cause *some* "fuzziness"
:-O
but other than that I’m not seeing anything that’s not what I’d expect.

Unless I personally go to my client’s office and try to see what else might be awry (aspect ratio? other settings?), and so long as he hasn’t sent either me or the hosting service vendor a screenshot of what it is he’s seeing that’s wrong (I emailed him step by step instructions for how to get one and asked that he email it to both me and the hosting service), I cannot see the problem, nor can my tech-cohorts from the hosting service see it, much less fix it. I’m not a hardware person, but I’m beginning to wonder if I should send someone from Geek Officecalls over to his place of business to look into this.
BL
Bob Levine
Feb 21, 2008
This is a 5 second procedure. As you note, you can’t force them to do it but you do need to make it clear that neither you nor the client can control what people have their monitors set to.

This is one of the reasons why when I do design a website I don’t make myself crazy or promise the client the moon.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 21, 2008
Please help (you have been a bit of a scoffer recently, please take this seriously).

I’m not a scoffer, i’m an "agent of change". Shh! Shh! Shh! you hear that? it’s the winds of change! 🙂

dave: I did. What does this mean to my life?

it means you are a wise man, and you like chinese food.
I
ID._Awe
Feb 21, 2008
Yum dim sum.
JM
Jan_Miele
Feb 21, 2008
Yes. Since I design for print AND the Web, I do often have to explain to clients that how an image (or a color) looks on any monitor (and they’re all different: brands, settings, brightness, age, etc.) does not necessarily "match" what comes out in print, or — when viewing a website — from one monitor to another. Gotta admit I was blindsided by this particular case because 1) no one has ever reported such a problem to me before, and I’ve been doing images for the Web for *years* and 2) I’d sent the client flat JPEG comps of the images at web resolution right along (he had 5 different sitewide header designs to choose from initially), and it wasn’t until the eleven-and-a-half-th-hour that he mentioned any problem at all. Up until a couple of days ago, he was extremely happy with how the site was looking.

Again, thanks everyone for your advice and support…

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections