SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you use the 800 x 600 resolution and if so, WHY?

Voters
152. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, I use a lower resolution because of my bad vision!

    1 0.66%
  • No, I use a higher resolution!

    94 61.84%
  • Yes, I use it, because I want to see what the crowd sees!

    30 19.74%
  • Yes, I always used it, cause I like it!

    20 13.16%
  • Yes... but why, I don't know!

    7 4.61%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 130
  1. #101
    Probably eating pie mitsubishi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    405
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use 1024*768 because I need to have more on screen when I'm doing things, escpecialy with a graphics package or coding with toolbars all over the place. Makes things a bit small, but it's better to use it all the time and get used to it. Even those who use high resolutions don't neccessarily have thier browsers maximized don't forget and many might have a media bar down the left side, so it neccessary to take this into account. I do keep this
    Code:
    javascript:resizeTo(800,600)
    as a link on my toolbar so I can quickly resize when testing pages.

  2. #102
    Typo Negative brokenvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The arrogance I've seen in this thread is staggering. If you "designers" who demand that people upgrade their system, or change it from settings that suit them to settings that suit you and your ego are the future of the web, then it's going to be a sorry assed future.

  3. #103
    Say WHA?! goober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    brokenvoice, you're a very militant person, aren't you?

    Lighten up. There are better ways to get your oppinions accross.

    And you're right, to a degree. But, at some point, there has to be something that brings it all together. I think it's more wishful thinking than the fact we're going to do this. *sigh* Oh well.

    Welcome to the community, by the way.
    Sean Killeen [LinkedIn] [Twitter] [Web]

    Warning: Reality.sys corrupted. Universe halted. Reboot? (Y/N)

  4. #104
    Typo Negative brokenvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the welcome goober.

    I just say it like I see it, without dressing it up in extra words that detract from my central point, there is never any malice behind what I say. Malice isn't my style. Being direct is the best form of communication.

    The naiveté is one thing: every new designer finding his/her feet goes through it, but the arrogance and ego that has been displayed here has no place in true design. I can usually let it slide, but the display here was just too much. For god's sake people, make whatever you want to make, but to demand that people change to suit you is not being a designer.
    Last edited by brokenvoice; Dec 24, 2001 at 10:45.

  5. #105
    Say WHA?! goober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You have many valid points.

    I was just giving a helpful reminder that getting your point across and having your point be well-receieved are two different things.
    Sean Killeen [LinkedIn] [Twitter] [Web]

    Warning: Reality.sys corrupted. Universe halted. Reboot? (Y/N)

  6. #106
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    268
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think someone's already made the point, but I use approximately 800x600-sized browser windows even though my monitor is running at 1600x1200. I always have a couple of browser windows open in the top half of my screen, with the bottom half having various other stuff (IRC or *shock* a text editor if I get over my laziness long enough to write some code ).

    The majority of people I've seen (admittedly computer literate people) don't browse with the browser maximised, so screen res isn't the be-all and end-all (though I imagine a lot more "weekend surfers" use a maximised browser).
    Nick Wilson [ - email - ]

  7. #107
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by brokenvoice
    Thanks for the welcome goober.

    The naiveté is one thing: every new designer finding his/her feet goes through it, but the arrogance and ego that has been displayed here has no place in true design. I can usually let it slide, but the display here was just too much. For god's sake people, make whatever you want to make, but to demand that people change to suit you is not being a designer.
    To be honest I took part in an exact thread over a devshed and to my dismay I was on the 'wrong' end in the majority of the debate. I believe we should program for the client. Most developers have an overwhelming need to always do better, which requires better reso's. This isn't always arrogance but can be the drive of becoming better.

    It really comes down to are you making a website for yourself to see or the public. If you really want a arge audience base then I think 800x600.
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  8. #108
    Say WHA?! goober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, Maelstrom basically summed it up, and I must say I agree with his point.
    Sean Killeen [LinkedIn] [Twitter] [Web]

    Warning: Reality.sys corrupted. Universe halted. Reboot? (Y/N)

  9. #109
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FINALLY!!!!!!

    As I think I said earlier in this thread, not everyone can afford the biggest and best and my stats show that the larger resolutions are in the minority. And that is not because people don't know how to change their resolution, they just can't afford to buy a new screen everytime a new size comes out. And it beats me how all you who do, can afford to....or is generous parents?

    brokenvoice, thanks for your 'repaired voice' and welcome!

  10. #110
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ohhh good

    I'm glad everyone understands now so, we can safely say that we shouldn't make sites that don't display properly in 800x600


  11. #111
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't forget the 'lowly' 640*480 either

  12. #112
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    nah... forget that

  13. #113
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Doesn't pay to forget any resolution

    800x600 311718 66.60%
    640x480 65362 13.96%
    1024x768 45347 9.68%
    Other 41301 8.82%
    1152x864 2168 0.46%
    1280x1024 1908 0.40%
    1600x1200 192 0.04%

  14. #114
    SitePoint Wizard geiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    tdevil, all stats will be skewed, but i think yours are a bit off. 640 users are more like 5% or less right now, and 1024x768 is more like 30%. what site did you get yours from?

  15. #115
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I must weigh in: do not explicitly design for 800x600. My sites, for the most part, are quite legible and functional when using that resolution...but they are not optimal. They are optimized for a 1024x658 resolution most of the time. Compatibility with 800x600, so that the site is not a pain to navigate and view, is important...but it shouldn't be confused with designing FOR it.

    I must also say that there are times when you have to leave old browsers and resolutions behind. Where the line is drawn is very subjective. Personally, I weight the benefit the compatible users will get (almost always the overwhelming majority), versus the annoyance the "older" users will get. If I can make my site more informative, and better overall, at the cost of making it a bit more cramped, for example, than I'd like on 800x600, then I'm gonna do it.

  16. #116
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you're way ahead of yourself on this one TWTCommish. You may be right, but there are very practical reasons why people are still using 800x600. It's not just a matter of choosing to change or upgrade.

  17. #117
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I must disagree: I didn't even comment on why people use 800x600, because it doesn't really change my stance: if the site is usable, but a little more crowded for 800x600 users, but much nicer and more useful to 1024x768 users, then I think it's worthwhile. I weigh the two options against each other. Why the people use 800x600 doesn't change that decision in the least...at least not in any way that comes to mind.

    I haven't even weighed in on whether or not people should upgrade, etc. That's another issue.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by geiger
    tdevil, all stats will be skewed, but i think yours are a bit off. 640 users are more like 5% or less right now, and 1024x768 is more like 30%. what site did you get yours from?
    Sorry mate, I copied that as is from one of my page trackers.

    I will check the stats of one that a tracker has only been on for about 2 weeks and see if you are correct

  19. #119
    SitePoint Evangelist tdevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay, this tracker was put up on Dec 13

    800x600 68.14%
    1024x768 20.22%
    640x480 6.26%
    Other 2.18%
    1152x864 1.69%
    1280x1024 1.36%
    1600x1200 0.11%

  20. #120
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TWTCommish

    I must also say that there are times when you have to leave old browsers and resolutions behind. Where the line is drawn is very subjective. Personally, I weight the benefit the compatible users will get (almost always the overwhelming majority), versus the annoyance the "older" users will get. If I can make my site more informative, and better overall, at the cost of making it a bit more cramped, for example, than I'd like on 800x600, then I'm gonna do it.

    This is where I meant you're ahead of yourself. I think it's very early days to be calling 800x600 and "old" resolution. It's still in the majority and it's not really clear that it's going to be going anywhere for quite a while.

  21. #121
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The same logic applies, however: weigh the benefit for some users, against the inconvienence for others. That's the root of this. Right now, my site looks good on 800x600, and pretty much equally good on 1024x768. The forums, however, given the large amount of data that has to be crammed in there, though, looks great on 1024x768, but a little cramped on 800x600. That's what I'm talking about: it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

    Those second stats look accurate, BTW: I know 640x480 is shrinking rapidly...800x600 will do the same over the next year or so, IMO.

  22. #122
    Typo Negative brokenvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I reckon 800*600 will stay stable for a while yet, or if it does dip, it will rise again. There are as yet many poorer areas of the world who are just starting to come online and they will go through the same resolution evolution as those is the west have. And there are poorer regions still and they will have their turn at the ladder.

  23. #123
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's that, and then there's the fact that many people's eyesight simply won't support a larger resolution comfortably without an awfully huge monitor. I think that making it harder for people to use 800x600 is really not the right thing to do at this time.

  24. #124
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    245
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will still design for 800x600. Not only do stats show that its the more popular resolution but I can use my studio as an example.

    At our offices we have about 16 monitors. 14 of them are 15 inch monitors set at 800x600 because their main use is for the staff to access the database. So when they use the internet they are viewing sites at that resolution. The other 2 are 1280 x 1024

    Now if we use Qamar's "theory of resolution in the office" that means more people use 800x600 than any other.

    Er! Is that a good enough reason

  25. #125
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by qamar
    I will still design for 800x600. Not only do stats show that its the more popular resolution but I can use my studio as an example.

    At our offices we have about 16 monitors. 14 of them are 15 inch monitors set at 800x600 because their main use is for the staff to access the database. So when they use the internet they are viewing sites at that resolution. The other 2 are 1280 x 1024

    Now if we use Qamar's "theory of resolution in the office" that means more people use 800x600 than any other.

    Er! Is that a good enough reason
    lol.... Not a very good sample, of all the millions of moniters in the world, 16 of them in your office doesnt mean much

    AS well as the *office* factor...


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
  •