| 9:16 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No, it's not time yet. Not sure what percentage of users are still on 800x600 but what I'm certain of is that you don't want to loose those people as clients just because the resolution is wrong.
The best way to go is to design a site that will look good on both resolutions.
[edited by: Sinner_G at 9:19 am (utc) on Aug. 9, 2002]
| 9:18 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Latest stats show that 800x600 resolution is being used by 50% of web users, with 1024x768 at 44%....
Display Statistics - Screen Resolution
1024x768 or more 44%
Other or Unknown 3%
If you are not going for a liquid page design then it looks like 800x600 still needs to be what you aim for...
| 9:21 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Blobfisk, is that a general statistic for the web or just a specific site? The amount of 800x600 seems very high.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 9:25 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Libraries and other educationally related institutions seem to be well known for their inventory of cr*p computers and low screen resolutions.
I think that's where a majority of that % comes from.
I sometimes take for granted where I live, I'm guessing that in some less privileged coutries, or areas, computers will be relatively expensive (less disposable income) so they ain't going to be running the new top of the range PC.
I know my college bought new PC's in '99. They are horribly out of date
| 9:30 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looking at my customer base, the 800x600 seems too low, not too high.
I guess it depends on how recently your customer base last bought a new monitor.
800x600 17594 67.63 %
1024x768 6015 23.12 %
640x480 1190 4.57 %
1280x1024 328 1.26 %
Being the figures for a large site, aimed largely at the UK.
| 9:44 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The first set of stats above is from w3schools.com [upsdell.com], so I think that they are general stats.
Here are a few others:
The Counter [thecounter.com] July 2002 Stats:
800x600 - 49%
1024x768 - 37%
1280x1024 - 4%
640x480 - 3%
1152x864 - 3%
Unknown - 1%
1600x1200 - 0%
Stats from Echo Echo [echoecho.com]:
800x600 - 52%
1024x768 - 34%
640x480 - 03%
1280x1024 - 03%
1152x864 - 03%
1600x1200 - <1%
These are general stats, based on a number of sites.
So, it seems that 800x600 is still very prolific and can't yet be ignored... As an aside, I'd much rather see NS4.x go away completely before 800x600 leaving us. It's much easier to cater for screen resolution than it is to make sure your lovely, validating code renders ok in NS4.x! :)
| 9:50 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looking at my stats, it totally depends on the type of site, but definetley business users in the UK are more likely to use 1024.
Home / Product
| 9:53 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
just checked out my stats
800 x 600 47%
1024 x 768 39%
1280 x 1024 3.5%
The other size resoluton figures go into .%
Hope that helps
| 10:08 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Webhits Germany gives the following stats:
1024 x 768 61.9%
800 x 600 18.1%
1280 x 1024 10.4 %
1152 x 864 6.4 %
1600 x 1200 1.4%
640 x 480 0.3%
AFAIK Switzerland, the Netherlands and scandinavian countries are even higher for high resolutions. Seems continental Europeans renew their hardware more often ;).
| 10:28 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's probably closer to the truth to say that most Europeans set their screen resolutions too high. Most people buy monitors that are really designed to work at 800x600, but often then fiddle around with the Control Panel to up the resolution. I have no idea why, because it means they're working at something in excess of 120ppi, when PCs assume somewhere around 72 or 96.
Perhaps American desks are bigger than European ones, so people sit further away from their monitors?
| 10:30 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
To collate all the data so far:
800x600 - ~47%
1024x768 - ~40%
1280x1024 - ~4%
640x480 - ~2%
1152x864 - ~1%
Other/Unknown - ~1%
1600x1200 - ~<1%
Very rough, but a bit of a measuring stick...
[edited by: BlobFisk at 10:46 am (utc) on Aug. 9, 2002]
| 10:37 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I guess the variation is down to the difference between home users and business users (with education and libraries etc confusing the issue further)
Seems that home users use 800*600 more than business users.
| 10:38 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If all that statistical data is based on the display resolution and not at the browser size, my very humble opinion from my unprivileged point of view is to dismiss them and stay at 800x600.
I have my display set at 1024x768, but my browser is always at 800 pixel width, because is more confortable and then I can get more windows to work with around.
Just a personal commentary, of course doesn't reflect the world's views.
| 11:27 am on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I have my display set at 1024x768, but my browser is always at 800 pixel width |
Why would you do that? And why would you want to have windows around your browser?
| 12:45 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you are building a fixed width site, I have heard that 760 pixles wide is standard. For a liquid design, I find that it is quite easy to build sites that look great at 800 odd pixles wide, and that still work ok at 500 pixles and 1000 pixles.
I would never recomend building a fixed width site at 1000 pixles, it will be annoying to about 70% or more of your visitors.
| 1:03 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sinner G...I can't speak for anyone else, but mostly while I'm on the web I'm multitasking like crazy...I end up with browser windows of all sorts of shapes and sizes depending on what else I'm doing
it seems a complete waste to use a windows style GUI and then run everything full screen...might as well save on memory and run in DOS
| 1:09 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Multi-tasking => ALT-Tab
| 1:26 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Also -- Multitasking=Taskbar (on Windows), or Tabbed browsing on Mozilla :)
| 1:27 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
alt tab is no use with seven or eight applications running simultaneously
| 1:31 pm on Aug 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|alt tab is no use with seven or eight applications running simultaneously |
That's what I do all the time.
This is turning into a side thread, maybe someone should move it to another place.
| 2:50 am on Aug 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Why would you do that? And why would you want to have windows around your browser?
I like like this :)
I use to have my browser, an editor, a console for compiling and running and maybe a music player, all these on the same workspace. I won't go on with my other two workspaces. Granted, this is Linux and the window manager behavior lets me to do sloppy mouse selection.
Anyway, my point is that 800x600 is readable enough for me, and wouldn't care if the status quo remained at that size.
| 4:09 am on Aug 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I tend to aim for 800x600. Well over 70% of my traffic is that resolution.
| 7:17 am on Aug 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>If you are building a fixed width site, I have heard that 760 pixles wide is standard.<<
Yes... it's very common to have the MS Office toolbar docked on the right hand side of the screen. Very annoying to have to scroll horizontally.
I once saw a roughly 800 pixel-wide site floating in the middle of a larger browser window, which looked great, and I've always wondered how they did it. It was on someone else's system and I never got the URL so I could check the code. I have an 800x600 screen, so on my own display I wouldn't notice that this had been done. Anyone have any ideas?
| 4:04 pm on Aug 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My monitor is 19 in. and set at 1024x768 and I also work like Eric_Jarvis and Duckula do, I have multiple browsers open all at once, with multiple windows of some of them, and several other applications open also. I constantly go back and forth between them working on different things at once. I hate browsing at full screen, it drives me nuts, I don't like having everything else covered up all the time.
| 8:14 pm on Aug 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Of course, we also need to consider that not all 800x600 viewings are the same (or any other resolution for that matter).
People have the Windows fonts set at different sizes and also set the browser to display at different font sizes. They may also have various toolbars installed etc.
The combinations can cause havoc if you are trying to position elements with any degree of precision.
Even if you set the font size using pixels, it is not going to work for every case.
I now try do everyting with CSS and position things with flexible layouts, (I can't wait till Netscape 4.* is dead).
| 8:35 pm on Aug 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think that you got to remember that you are asking a bunch of web pro's here, alot of us have multiple browsers, windows, apps running when we surf, at present I have Opera, IE, Fireworks 4 and downloading as well. How many customers are going to be in that kind of operating inviroment when at your site?
| 8:12 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Could someone give a definition of "fixed" vs. "liquid?" I've really been struggling with designing a site that works well at 800x600 & 1024x768. Thanks!
| 8:40 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you have three columns for example...
And you use pixels to represent the width of each column, your layout will be fixed.
And if you use percentages, your layout will be liquid. That way your containing blocks will expand and contract with different screen resolutions.
| 8:46 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Excellent, thanks. You just helped me solve a big problem with my layout! :)
| This 73 message thread spans 3 pages: 73 (  2 3 ) > > |