Will we get paid more if we choose to display a native ad with a higher height (i.e 400) or are all native ads the same and height doesn’t play a factor in how much ecpm you’ll get. If so what would be the point of displaying the bigger native ad when you can show one with small height.
Here’s all the heights for native ads templates:
GenericHeight100
GenericHeight120
GenericHeight300
GenericHeight400
Is it valuable to display a native ad with 400 than then one with 100? Will it increase earnings?
Related
Sections of my site look a little different on Chrome Dev Tools simulating an iPhone 12 than an actual iPhone 12. Why is this? I've signed up for browserstack. Do you guys think they produce an accurate representation of a site on different devices? Do you recommend any others?
This is the site (iPhone 12) on Chrome Dev: https://snipboard.io/OpU8aj.jpg
Same site on my iPhone 12: https://snipboard.io/vl6b8f.jpg
Notice the type in relation to the red background?
I'm wondering too... This is the first time I've used %'s for my padding and margins. I usually use em, rem or px. Could using percentages have something to do with it? I do understand the the percentage is based on the parent element. But still... not sure if that has anything to do with it.
Thank you
I was having the same issue. I learned, and I'm sure most of you know this, any iPhone above an iPhone 8, that Apple's documented viewport size is not the actual pixel size (w x h) that displays a website or app. I discovered this after researching Apple dev docs. There is now a "safe area" leaving room for native device buttons on the top and bottom in portrait mode, or both sides in landscape mode. You subtract the area for these buttons from the manufactures documented viewport size to get the real displayed viewport or "safe area". Of course it will be different for every device.
I hope i'm not breaking any rules with the following. I used "what is my viewport" https://whatismyviewport.com/ Pull up this url in any device and it will show the actual width by height in px, of that device. This is the actual size your website or app will be displayed at.
I am now able to set new media queries using the above info instead of media queries based on the device manufacturer's documented viewport size. This solved the issues I was having.
I've built flat page sites for years, largely with table architecture, and I know they must become more mobile compatible.
However, I actually WANT some of my non responsive sites to display in mobile screens as simply reduced-sized versions of themselves.
In an effort to understand the basics, I've created a simple page, no tables, one piece of art, and the meta tag which I understand is supposed to reduce a large size HTML page to fit within a mobile screen. But when I check this in a mobile screen emulator, my page is huge with just part of itself showing in the mobile screen. It's not reducing so that its full contents show within the screen.
What's the basic concept I'm missing?
http://ldihealtheconomist.com/html5-test-single-col.html
You're using a set width.
No matter what screen you're using, if you set the width as pixels then it will be displayed as that many pixels.
No offense, but if you've been making sites for years and don't know this, then maybe it's not the right thing for you...
Read up on #media queries, vw,vh and viewport widths.
Look at frameworks such as Bootstrap or Skeleton.
If you set a DFP (Google Ads) ad / creative to display:none so it is invisible. Will it still get impressions? So say I have 31 DFP ads, one is set to display:block and the other 30 are set to display:none.. will each one of the 30 ads that are invisible get a view / impression? And say I set the 30 ads to display:none and then switch them over to display:block when the viewers browser width exceeds 600px... Will the impressions only count until the ads are turned into display:block? Or how would this whole display none with DFP situation work?
As far as I am aware, if you set the adunit to display none the JavaScript is still executed and the ad is still loaded into the page, hence it counts as an impression. I am pretty sure this will be against the Google DFP terms of service and would recommend not taking this approach.
According to the responsive ad unit spec, it is ok to hide them via CSS "display: none;". See "Hiding an ad unit" at the bottom of this page: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/3543893?hl=en
We're creating the interface for an admin panel and we have a dilemma: chose a fixed width approach as opposed to a fluid/elastic one.
The main argument for a fixed width is that is will look the same on all screens, irrespective of screen size.
But we're talking about admin consoles here, where the target is a very small set of people. And we'd like to bundle in lots of info on the screen. We don't know what our clients are going to use when browsing this admin panel (laptop, desktop, or both) and we wouldn't like to limit their experience.
Most CMS's out there chose an elastic approach for their backends, like Wordpress, Joomla, etc.
Do you have any advices?
Thanks
No doubts : choose an elastic design !
It is far more future-proof, with all types of screen-width we begin to encounter today : mobile, netbook, tablets, large desktop screens...
it's not harder to code, only a different approach, and a rewarding one in the long term.
More on the subject :
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic/
http://htmldog.com/articles/elasticdesign/demo/
Go for the Liquid layout.It will allow you to display more content on larger monitors, but still remain viable on smaller displays.
More detail visit
http://www.sendesignz.com/index.php/css/52-how-to-do-liquid-layout
I have a client with a resolution Width of 1200 on their monitor and I need to maximize the width of my web site but I don't want the client to have to use the horizontal scroll bar. What is the max width you can use in a website in IE 7 with a screen resolution of 1200 without needing to use a horizontal scroll bar(Other users will have a larger width and all users must have the same width)?
Extra info- The web site is already built and can not use a width of 100% as this has bad consequences in a non textual web site. Yes the resolution is a width of 1200 (the client has a 1920 X 1200 resolution monitor that is set on its side).
The OS is Vista and as the client is government he will have Vista at least through 2010 and can not change his theme/browser etc.
You asked two questions, really. To answer the title question:
20px (IE7, Windows XP, Default Theme)
Everybody else has done a great job of answering the real question.
how about:
body{
width:100%;
}
and by this I mean, let the user size their browser to whatever they want, and make your content fit their screen.
Update:
As users have noted below, sometimes 100% is a bit too much... for those cases I would highly recommend this article & demo by Cameron Adams (The Man In Blue) that applies fluid layouts that re-arrange the content/CSS bases on the width of the browser.
Simple, the maximum width is 100%.
Seriously though, what possible reason could you have for designing a website to the scale of a single persons single computer? What happens when they buy a new computer?
I design any fixed-width sites to roughly 900-1000 px and center it. This is the general approach taken by most sites and I strongly recommend not straying from it unless your design is capable of using percentage widths. Your client will understand if you explain it in these terms and show them any of the thousands of popular sites following this behaviour.
Just don't hardcode any pixel widths?
It doesn't seem likely that you're going to get it down to the exact pixel; since users can change their Windows theme, the right-hand scroll bar can vary in width.
Most websites I have seen do this allow their website to "float" into the width of the page by using CSS.
If you don't want to set the body width in css to 100%, then set it at about 95%. That will still allow the page to expand/contract to the end-user's desired width, down to only 400 width without a horizontal scroll.
The following formula should work for you, whether you use it for minimum or maximum page widths.
$safe_PgWidth_Percentage = (1 - (20/$minPageWidth));
While users in a restricted environment may not be able to change their operating system, browser, etc. I cannot imagine that they would not be able to grab the corner of their browser window and reduce or enlarge it by dragging.
That's the point your commentors are making. Coding the body to a percentage, in fact as close as possible to 100%, takes care of useability issues, including fixing your horizontal scrolling dilemma.