SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is your primary site designed with 640x480 in mind?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - it shapes up well at all resolutions.

    22 37.93%
  • No - it is designed for larger resolutions but incompatible at 640x480.

    36 62.07%
  • I do not have a site.

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Designing with 640x480 in mind

    I know - it's been asked many many times before, but I was wondering how many reputable sites you know of that look great at high resolutions, yet are designed with 640x480 in mind. Also, pay attention to what appears 'above the fold' on these sites.

    My site is designed with this intention. I've also put together a little poll (above) to ask whether your site is designed with 640x480 in mind. If you choose the first option, it'd be great if you could make a post here describing your site.

    When I say 'designed with 640x480 in mind', I mean a site that will display correctly maximised at 640x480 resolution without the need to scroll horizontally.

    I don't want this to turn into a debate about whether or not people still use 640x480, or whether it is worth designing for this minority. I just want to know of people and/or sites that do keep this resolution in mind, and do it really well.

    I'll be the first to nominate a site:

    http://www.theage.com.au/
    This site looks great at all resolutions, including 640x480. Above the fold is the top headline, breaking news, as well as a photograph from another feature, and the local weather forecast.

    While it has obviously been designed to look great at 640x480, it does not look sparse at high resolution (1280x960).
    Last edited by mmj; Sep 21, 2001 at 05:45.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework · Jokes · Android stuff

  2. #2
    blonde.... Sarah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    7,442
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    has to be said that ALL my sites are designed for 640*480 although I actually design on 1024.. I always ensure that it looks decent in all res. apart from larger than 1024 as I don't have that capability on my machine.

    you just never know who is looking at it and I also find it a challenge to ensure that its compatiable with ALL types, resolution, browser etc (apart from mac though I don't have one and can't afford to buy one so sorry to mac users out there!!!)

    Sarah

  3. #3
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Sarah
    and I also find it a challenge to ensure that its compatiable with ALL types, resolution, browser etc
    Yes!! I totally agree with you. I like the challenge of designing for all resolutions.

    Whenever somebody complains about their site not fitting at x resolution, or says that designing for 640x480 is not worth it, I can say "It is possible if you have a good design". The site I posted above, and hopefully my own site too, are proof of this.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework · Jokes · Android stuff

  4. #4
    blonde.... Sarah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    7,442
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    plus being very new at this sort of thing learning to suit all browser types has made me learn so much more, like I finally managed to get a site that had curved borders around it like a TV screen, and I could never get it quite right but no I have and it took a while but I finally got there and I am really chuffed with myself.

    plus its all par of the job and keeps it exciting (but it can still get you down but that is why theer are sites like these to help you out and spread the learning knowledge!)

    sarah

    working hard of course

  5. #5
    SitePoint Addict five40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Imatra, Finland
    Posts
    215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    W3C looks good even at lower resolutions however there are too many sites which don't. I also try to keep 640*480 in mind when designing a site.
    "-Surely you can't be serious ?
    -Yes I am serious...and don't call me Shirley."

  6. #6
    Former Staff Member silver trophy Adam P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    www.mostlyamphigory.com is an excellent example. Go mmj!
    SPF Mentor/Advisor 2001-2003
    SPF Designer of the Year 2002
    SPF Graphic Designer of the Year 2003
    AdamPolselli.com

  7. #7
    EGADD
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm guilty of it, I design for 800x600 unless specifically asked to design for lower. It isn't for lack of trying but rather because I use 1152x864 and my sites always end up looking really spaced out when they work at 640x480. The only win-win situation I could come to was to design for 800x600.

  8. #8
    SitePoint Evangelist lirux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lisboa : Portugal
    Posts
    418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A site that fits perfect in all resolutions: google.com!

    PS.Personally, I design for 800x600
    Duarte Carrilho da Graça
    RailsHelp.com: Searchable Rails reference
    CACA: Committee for the Annihilation of Complicated Acronyms

  9. #9
    SitePoint Member AdvanceHost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It depends on several factors such as what kind of site and what kind of its audiences.

    Do I keep the 640x480 size in mind? the answer would be YES.

    I always try to create site aiming for smaller screen like handheld. It might look funny on big screen, but it's annoying when I have to scroll page on small gadget. IMO, more and more people will use handheld or pocket tools than web TV with big screen. More and more people will be surfing internet on a go.

    I have 3 kinds of screen sizes at home. Therefore, I always design "in between" 640x480 to 1024x768 and use fixed table.

    This is my site's screen resolution stat.

    800x600 57.34%
    1024x768 35.71%
    1152x864 2.61%
    640x480 2.11%
    1280x1024 0.95%
    Other 0.85%
    1600x1200 0.40%

  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't like liquid pages because at one resolution or another I always seem to hit some bottle-neck, so to speak, with the design. But, if I design an absolute width page for 640x480, it looks terrible at higher resolutions (e.g. I use 1280x1024 myself), and so that defeats the whole purpose for me. I will try to keep the content within the 640x480 "viewing window," but I do not go out of my way for it.

    I don't mean to sound cold here, but my rule of thumb is 800x600 and up. If someone wants to have a resolution as low as 640x480, then they can suck up and view the site that way, even if it does scroll horizontally. I have a 10 year old monitor that I can get up to 1024x768 resolution; I'm sure just about everyone can up their resolution if they want to. So I really have no sympathy.

    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Aes
    I'm sure just about everyone can up their resolution if they want to. So I really have no sympathy.
    I agree completly with what Aes said, its the same thing with designing for IE 3, NS 3. I wonder how many designers test in these browsers... none would,
    If they get frustrated by having to scroll vertically at 640 then they should right click, go to settings and move the little marker along a notch or two, takes them 30 seconds!

  12. #12
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I always design for 800x600

    about 6% of my visitors are at 640x480, why bother catering for them?

    having said that, my next site will be 640x480 compatible, as its small, graphically unintensive, and there wont be much info on it...

  13. #13
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Yeppoon, Australia
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I too aim at a minimum of 800x600 however I try to fit the columns of a page so that it looks good at 640x480 though sometimes that's just not possible.

    As an aside, the site for the Internation Organistation for Standards (ISO) is aimed at 800x600 and up (www.iso.ch). I wonder if that's saying something?
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomatoe is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Zealot wrkalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm fairly new to this web design gig but here's a few of my thoughts.

    I Want everyone to have the full experience when going to my site. I dont yet have the knowledge to impliment that but thats the goal.

    I only have 800x600 and 1024x768 so I cant say if most sites employee methods for easy viewing at lower or higher res.. I can say that many sites ignore 800x600.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Addict cyberprince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I keep praying that people will move up to the 600x800 at least!

  16. #16
    The Hiding One lynlimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    WOW. And nope. None of my sites work at 640 by 480.
    The closest i'll ever get is using a php database driven website.

    Simply put, i'll have al my data in a database. And the actual design/site layout would be template base. 'skinning'? So i'll have specific skins/template for resolutions of 640 by 480 pixels. and maybe another for greater then 1024by 768pixel resolutions.

    the default owuld of coz be for 800 by 600 and 1024 by 768.
    Isn't complex to work it out, but i'm just wondering when my site actually needs to cater for 640 by 480 and people who use greater then 1024 by 768...
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
    -- Albert Einstein

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict klisis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I design for 800 x 600 and higher although my current design works on lower solution.

    My stats shows that less than 1 % of visitors use 640 x 480 and personally those who use 640 x 480 would have no interest in the content of my site (as the content targets teenagers or late 20s).

    In the meantime, the old people, mid 40s and older, seems to prefer 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 because the text is larger that way. (so they can read easier) (It applies to Korean. I don't know about Americans.)

    I use 100% or 95% width. But I wanna do fixed table width one day as it is easier to design.

  18. #18
    SitePoint Enthusiast JohnInFl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To be able to attract all visitors of course
    design for 640 x480. Neophtype computer enthusiasts are not always knowledgeable of computer screen resolutions. Hence, I design for 640 x480

  19. #19
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here are the stats from one of my pages

    800x600 283407 66.03%

    640x480 62248 14.50%

    Other 40542 9.44%

    1024x768 39299 9.15%

    1152x864 1844 0.42%

    1280x1024 1643 0.38%

    1600x1200 162 0.03%

    So I think everyone should think of ALL surfers.

    Until 12 months ago I was a 640x480 user. There are millions of people who just can't afford a bigger monitor.

    I only have a bigger and faster PC due to my web earnings, many people don't have that luxury.

  20. #20
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got a feeling that Australians are a bit more likely to use 640x480 - but this is just based on my observations.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework · Jokes · Android stuff

  21. #21
    SitePoint Guru moonman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Sea of Tranquility
    Posts
    696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    800x600 and 1024x768. All info I have says that most people view at 800x600, the second most at 1024. I hoped that the 640x480 people would've joined the real world by now.

  22. #22
    1-800-JMULDER JMulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,745
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    800x600 at least =\

    I design at 1024x768..but I think it all depends on what kind of site you're making.

    The sites I made were all (?) gaming related, and we all know Gamers have a fricking fast computer and a resolution of at least 800x600, most of them use 1024x768 though..

    Just my two 0.02
    Jeroen Mulder

    w: www.jeroenmulder.com

  23. #23
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    san francisco, ca
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One reason why a some users are still on either 800x600 res and 640x468 res is because they have no idea they can change the screen setting. I know people with brand new computers that uses the default 800x600 res, and they didn't know it can be adjusted until I told them. Regardless, I try designing my sites to fit 800x600 screen resolution.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by mmj
    I've got a feeling that Australians are a bit more likely to use 640x480 - but this is just based on my observations.
    And what do you base your observations on?

    That the average Aussie can't afford to go and buy a bigger screen (most can't)

    I had a 14" monitor before this one (I thought it was 15 at the time) I tried setting it to 800*600 and found it very hard on the eyes :-)

    I now have a 17" and tried a higher resolution (1024*768) but didn't really like it, so I am stuck on 800*600.

    I also have a friend with a 19" (monitor ) and he prefers the 800*600.

    I really think that those that only design for 800*600 and up are inconsiderate.

    But it seems more and more are designing for 1024*768 and up cos I have to scroll across and that annoys me! Especially if it is mainly text stuff and a long page.

    It's a bit like the people that don't consider Netscape and other browsers (in another thread)

    Surfers are visitors.....

    Do you say to visitors at your house, "sorry you have the wrong brand of shoes on, go and buy Nikes before you can enter" Or "this place is for tall, wide people, you won't fit in, because you are
    skinny and short" (or vice versa)?


  25. #25
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by tdevil


    And what do you base your observations on?

    That the average Aussie can't afford to go and buy a bigger screen (most can't)
    I guess I just base my observations on the fact that you and I seem to have a higher percentage of 640x480 users than others in this discussion.

    I don't think this is due to us not being able to afford a larger monitor, because as Berlin says many people just don't realise that their current monitor can increase its resolution.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework · Jokes · Android stuff


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •