Designing for Different Screen Resolutions

What minimum resolution do you design to?

  • 800 x 600

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 960 x 600

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1024 x 768

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't even think about it!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.

reverbstudios

New Member
I know the problems involved with designing sites that need to look ok in all the browser & screen resolution combinations but I'm wondering is it safe to forget about 800 x 600 monitors in this day and age. Does anyone still have a monitor set to this resolution by default and if they do are they financially secure enough to be able to afford an internet connection too!?

I design to 1024 x 768 and above and I'm happy to do that. My own setup is dual 1680 x 1050 Lcd's so I often get shocks when checking my sites at 1024 x 768 even!
 

Gavin

New Member
Does anyone still have a monitor set to this resolution by default and if they do are they financially secure enough to be able to afford an internet connection too!?
Of course! Not everyone has a need/want to upgrade their monitor just because its the way the market has moved.

Just looking at one of my sites, 10% of users are on 800 x 600.
 

reverbstudios

New Member
Well sometimes you have to move with the times and someone should tell 800 x 600 owners that their web experience could be much better if they upped their resolution at least, never mind buying a new monitor.

In fact I'm off to tell them how now on my blog!
 

Briask

New Member
Why should ppl upgrade?

Just because M$, Adobe and their ilk like to promote software bloat doesn't mean we all have to follow like sheep.

The biggest most used site in the world i.e. the Big G looks perfectly fine on 800x600. With Web2.0 or whatever it is being called these days many sites are heading for a simple clear uncluttered look and feel, and many of these perform quite well on 800x600.
 

n3tFl0w

New Member
10% at 800x600? What demographic?? That seems like a ridiculously large percent.

Screen sizes are more about the people who visit your site, and sometimes more specifically - the ages of the people who visit your site. (older people tend to have smaller screens - when in fact the opposite would benefit them better...)

Personally - I ignore the 800x600 market. A huge number of reports have shown that the real percentage of people at that res are tiny and aren't going to be the type of people I wont on my site anyway. I have a PDA version that people on iPhones or Asus eee's can look at if they want? I've never actually looked at the traffic it gets though... I'd say its tiny.

As for Google.com looking fine on 800x600 that because its an image, and text box and a couple of buttons. There isn't a site in the world that can get away with that nowadays. Gmail doesn't work to well on 800x600 - either do any of their other apps.

And as for the simple uncluttered feel i.e. web2.0 - how many sites that are popular to the masses have that going on? Bebo? no. Facebook? no. MySpace? Hell no.

Again I'll go back to my original point. Decide what res is going to be your minimum by working our what your demographic is going to be. Web designers? nice and big. Hearing aids? Probably smaller.

Edit, because once I read it again I had to!: And as for why 'ppl' should upgrade? The price of progress. briask, I don't know what you do but if you were coding a site - do you still factor in netscape? ie4? I don't there's anyone who still does. This is how the world works.
 

byronyasgur

New Member
i used to always design for 800 but have just changed my mind

been doing pc maintenance (mostly non tech users) for a good few years and it was very rare that i came accross someone who has the screen set below 1024 (and afaik no new systems are 800 by default) .... my own theory which i have (only last week) set upon is that if you have a three column layout ideally then you can design for 1024 and put the less important stuff in the right hand colum (polls, adds, newsticker that type of thing) then even if someone does have a lower setting then they can still see the navigation links and primary content, or else if you have a two column then put the nav links on the right and as well as the top - has the same effect.
 

Busarus

New Member
Traditionally Archiseek has been 800 wide with google ads in a third column to bring it up to 1000 - that way I lose nothing.

But my demographic would be largely architecturally based - so large res monitors

So am currently redesigning it to 1000 but again with some advertising on the final column - just better integrated rather than the obvious add-on it is today.

have also taken the opp to get a graphic designer to do a proper logo for the site... about time really - twelve years at it soon enough
 

gav240z

New Member
Unfortunately I don't think blogging about it will change much.

I would still design for 800X600. I've not tested my own blog on this, in hindsight I should have. I also recently posted stats that show 3% are still using 800X600 screen resolution in Ireland.

If you don't like the restriction, perhaps consider a fluid layout, have 1 fixed width column and make the other(s) fluid.
 

Fuzzo

New Member
800 x 600 for me, I dont see any point in slicing a chunk of potential customers off my website for design gratification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Award-winning Mac antivirus and Internet security software
Top