The Definitive FAQ on Screen Resolution

[mattb348]

Interesting discussion about the resolutions. So I decided to look in my google analytics account and share stats from the last year:

1024x768 - 45.26%
1280x800 - 14.04%
1280x1024 - 13.78%
800x600 - 7.71%
1440x900 - 4.94%
1152x864 - 3.61%

Other resolutions - less than 3%.

Hmmmmmm it looks like you kind of answered my question that I just posted about being able to finnaly drop the 800x600 resolution. I guess I should have read more of the replies. But anyways, if only about 8% of people run in 800x600, I would say that it probably isn't worth worrying about whether to optimize for 800x600 when creating a page.

[felgall]

Screen resolution has nothing to do with browser viewport size. Your web page should be designed to fill the browser viewport and not the screen. Those with larger screen resolutions have room to have both their browser and something else visible on the screen at the same time.

The only fixed size to design for is for the print version where you need a version of your page that fits within 750px equivalent. Since this basically equates to the space in a browser full screen at 600x800 that is the one resolution that can never be completely dropped since even if you are going to force people to have a horizontal scrollbar on their screen you still need a print version that fits that width.

So the answer is that NO you can't drop support for that resolution until everyone trades in their A4 printers for A3 printers (or US equivalents).

[mattb348]

Screen resolution has nothing to do with browser viewport size. Your web page should be designed to fill the browser viewport and not the screen. Those with larger screen resolutions have room to have both their browser and something else visible on the screen at the same time.

The only fixed size to design for is for the print version where you need a version of your page that fits within 750px equivalent. Since this basically equates to the space in a browser full screen at 600x800 that is the one resolution that can never be completely dropped since even if you are going to force people to have a horizontal scrollbar on their screen you still need a print version that fits that width.

So the answer is that NO you can't drop support for that resolution until everyone trades in their A4 printers for A3 printers (or US equivalents).

Thanks for the reply. I didn't think that I would get a response since the thread was started so long ago

[Dan Schulz]

If he would not have answered it, I would have.

[Java987]

when i dmake a page to fit the resolution,i really dont care about the resolutions smaller then 1024 width...

so i simply put a table that wide and make the page

[Jake Arkinstall]

@Java987: I'd suggest giving those with lower resolution more of a chance. It's not them thats losing out if they get annoyed trying to navigate your site - they can just go to your competitors, they don't care. You should, though.

And don't get me started on the use of tables...

[anandsoft]

Good discussion.
Though 1024 resolution is most widely used, there are a lot of sites that were recently modified but still designed for 800X600 resolution. Many ecommerce sites have 800X600 resolution. I think, it is difficult to fill the real estate with suitable content for ecommerce sites without detracting the potential buyer.
I guess, one most important thing in considering 800X600 or 1024X800 or any other is the utilization of real estate. For example, if a site displays several other products or articles on a specific product page, a visitor may be detracted from buying the product. On the other hand, if you use large screen resolution, and populate the page scarcely (to keep the visitor focused to a specific product) the visitor may still get detracted.

If you have a site such as a forum site, help site, or corporate website, it may be useful to design for higher resolution (as you can accommodate ads, etc.).

[JZ Design]

I feel that even in my 1440x900 resolution, I have no qualms with a site designed for 800x600. Anyways, a little scrolling never hurt anyone. A long and narrow or short and wide design can often be very visually appealing anyways and can open up some opportunities for creative presentation of content!

[akai10]

are there really that much disadvantage in using 95% width?I think I need to get a proper idea if there is much disadvantage

[louiseq]

is the first post still correct? I looked at thecounter.com and the stats show that 800x600 is only used on older systems i the UK. Im guessing librarys and schools.. That isnt my target audience...

[webguru26]

yepp this helped wonders

[felgall]

is the first post still correct? I looked at thecounter.com and the stats show that 800x600 is only used on older systems i the UK. Im guessing librarys and schools.. That isnt my target audience...

Screen resolution stats have nothing whatsoever to do with browser viewport size. If someone is using a 1024x768 screen resolution you can't tell if their browser viewport size is 2000x700 or 200x200 or anywhere in between.

[Vovol]

It was a very nice post zcorpan!!

Very well done for this!! I was knowing that size of the image can be given in px and %.

But why it is given and what is the difference between the two, and what will be its effect on web pages according to the browser that I was not knowing...That I understood today after reading your post!!

So, for made us learn something so deeply!!

[Hecky]

It's always so interesting watching how web-pages change when I view them at 2560x1600

[Tokyo Hostel Kyo]

Works for me with dual screens, QD, returning all of the resolutions possible with both screens.
<snip>No fake signatures allowed... be patient </snip>

[Killers99]

Interesting read. I would say depending on your audience it may be worth dropping 800x600. But it depends on your audience and purpose.

Thanks!

[Jack76]

I've almost completely stopped building sites within 800x600. At this point those people who still run at that resolution are well used to seeing sites wider than their monitors. If they are ok with this and don't want to upgrade their settings then I'm fine with it too.

[Stevie D]

I've almost completely stopped building sites within 800x600. At this point those people who still run at that resolution are well used to seeing sites wider than their monitors. If they are ok with this and don't want to upgrade their settings then I'm fine with it too.

That's an interesting attitude to take. When I design a site, I want to make it available to as many people as I can. For the same reason as I don't use microscopic fonts, or clashing colours, or prevent people using IE6, or write in Latin ... I am not going to make it unnecessarily difficult for people with narrower browser windows to use the site.

For people to use your website should not be a privilege that you grant or deny - at least, not if you want to do business. Closing the door on a large chunk of people for no good reason is a pretty dumb thing to do. They'll take their business elsewhere, and it's you that loses out, not them. You think it's just about technology? There are lots of reasons why people might have a narrower browser viewport - they might be using an old office computer that can't be upgraded; they might have bad eyesight and need it pumped up to that size to read it; they might have large screens but not maximise the browser (I run 1280×1024 and I rarely maximise the browser viewport, it's just too large to be comfortable for text). But whatever the reason, it's up to the user to decide what setup they want to run.

<sarcasm>You're right. Clearly anyone who chooses settings different to yours is not worthy, and you shouldn't waste your time making your site work for them. After all, it only matters that it works for you...</sarcasm>

But hey, the point of this sticky was to give readers advice and all the good reasons not to specify a width more than 800px. If you've read all that and you still want to ignore it, that's your lookout.

[dagaul101]

Agreed, the resolution should at least try and adapt for the viewer regardless of their settings

[zuchrivious]

old post yet still relevant, more and more device will be available in the future, the designs need to adapt them

[scootyboy0304]

Very helpful post for some of us newbies trying to hone our design skills. This may sound like a dumb question but will the statements included in the "expressions" link also be helpful in Wordpress? I would assume so but any guidance you provide me would be helpful .

[johnpolacek]

Given the vast array of devices that are now able to view the web, the current consensus among the web design community favors the approach of ‘Responsive Web Design’ which you can read more about in this article. The best way to implement this approach is still up for debate, but the author of the article, Ethan Marcotte, has a great book that covers it in detail. Highly recommend.

[xinkali]

13% use 1280x1024,guess we are few

[beechfielder]

Thanks for the pointer in my other thread Stevie D.

It is very interesting how fast usage and resolution stats change and it definitely needs continual evaluation how to best keep up with these. I was wondering about the best size to design at for a particular site I am working on, with a fixed size. I was thinking 960px, which I have been using for a while, but mainly with flexible width sites. This site has to be fixed though.

Anyway, I thought I would check a couple of large sites like Amazon and the BBC. With Amazon you have to start scrolling at around 1180, where some of the images start disappearing and their menu adjusts down to about 980px. The BBC site is similar, with horizontal scrollbars appearing at 980px. I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of making a site accessible to the largest number, but now that stats such as the W3 schools show less than a 1% figure for 800x600, maybe designing a fixed site with that in mind would not be so good. The site I am replacing is 760px, but it looks really tiny on my monitor and seems to date it too.

I am very interested in whether people have changed how they design from earlier in this thread, when the stats showed different figures and also how people generally approach this.

[Stevie D]

My answer is the same as it has been for 10 years – screen size is NOT the same as viewport size.

My monitor runs at 1280×1024, but my browser viewport is about 900px wide, because that's the size I find comfortable. As people go for bigger and wider screens, that becomes increasingly common – very few people want a browser running 1920px wide, it just isn't a good use of screen space and nor does it give good results on a lot of websites, so they are more likely to have two windows side-by-side.

In days of yore, most people did maximise their browser windows, because it was the only way to get them big enough to be useful. These days, that isn't the case any more. Add mobile browsers into the mix as well, and you'll soon see that, regardless of what proportion of PC users run at 1024 and upwards, there are a lot of people who don't have that much space in their browser window.