SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot beejereeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN - USA
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy Larger screens more commonplace?

    Does anyone consider 1024 x 768 to be the new minimum resolution for viewing websites?

    I'm just wondering because lately I've been visiting clients' offices/homes and seeing their site on their monitor and it seems much smaller than I planned for! So I was doing some window and catalog shopping and it seems to me that retailers and manufacturers are really trying to push out the 22" and up sized screens these days!

    I mean, I guess I knew there was still a number of folks with the 800x600 resolution (you know, lightweight & mini laptops, notepads, etc. w/13.6-14" screens) and then the rest basically using 17" sized screens, but are there more of the larger ones being used more commonly? Should I be considering 1024x768 as my minimum size for a site design now?

    I really try to design a fluid width whenever possible and then I view the sites in a larger resolution on screen capture sites. But in some cases fluid only solves wrapper and body area size issues, not font issues and problems with images being smaller than desireable from a larger-screen user's standpoint.

    What are you thoughts on this? Anyone? Bueller? Is there any official word out on it?

    Oh, and uhm, yeah, I know... rock + me living under it
    -Bobbi Jo
    -----------------------------------------------
    www.bwoodsdesign.com

    Your Website Solutions Start Here

  2. #2
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It all depends on your target audience. You can, relatively, safely ignore 800x600 if you want to for the average website, but if you have a commercial website, it is best not to.

    I wouldn't consider 1024x768 the new minimum though because calling it a minimum implies that you can and should go bigger. From my experience, many people do not browse with their browser full-screen on larger monitors -- my own browser is set at 1024x768 or slightly bigger almost without fail. 10234x768 is just the new standard size.

    (Besides, most websites do not have more than 1024 pixels of useful information to show so they end up filling the page with random graphics and stuff that just detracts from the content.)

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The most used screen size may be 1024x768 pixels, but that does not mean that the available browser width is that much. A lot of people do not maximise their browser windows, especially those with large screens, and various side panels take up quite a lot of room. If I enable the 'Favorites' panel on my browser, it takes up about 270 pixels. If the user has a fully-maximised 1024x768 browser window, that leaves about 750 pixels for contents.

    In most cases, it makes more sense to use fluid layouts than to discuss browser width. In a few cases, fluid layouts doesn't make sense to implement (for example if all your contents has a specific width), but that is rarely the case.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  4. #4
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  5. #5
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Many people aged 50+ prefer 800x600. And they often have more disposable incomes.
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  6. #6
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Agreed and seconded. THere's a reason why I say that screen resolution (as many people call it) is meaningless. That FAQ explains why.

  7. #7
    Twitter - @CarlBeckel busy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Richmond, VA, USA
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It might be my imagination, but it seems like I'm noticing more and more sites that are designed for wider than 800px width. I have always accommodated 800x600 users, but I can see the sense in perhaps allowing a small amount of h-scroll for the 800x600 users to provide a better overall site for everyone else.

    For example, Jango starts scrolling at any smaller than a width of 880px, but ay 800x600 it's a small enough amount that it doesn't interfere with using the site.

    (In all fairness, they could have gone fluid and made those 100px or so work, but that's not the point.)

    Doesn't take into account mobile device screens, etc, but IMO they either need to accomodate normal sized pages their own way or have special stylesheets for them anyways.


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
  •