| 8:08 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My screen res is 1600X1200 so 800X600 works beautifully for me to have two windows side by side open. Very useful for me and my older machine using clientelle.
| 8:11 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just a small point, after converting my sites from a fixed resolution to a flexi one (using percentages) my conversion rate increases a bit.
| 8:53 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
domingo has it right: Go with flexible layouts.
Make your page work for any size. Why limit who can view your page?
| 9:59 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't forget to check out yesterdays thread on screen size
| 11:20 am on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the input.
I am actually looking for official statistics. I found information on "TheCounter.com"
Thu May 1 00:05:02 2003 - Sat May 31 23:55:04 2003 31.0 Days
800x600 14702904 (44%)
1024x768 13992243 (42%)
1280x1024 1636875 (4%)
1152x864 1027458 (3%)
640x480 764664 (2%)
Unknown 463074 (1%)
1600x1200 228132 (0%)
This refers to visitors to TheCounter website, I was wondering if there is a more offical source, one with separate statistics for home users and work users.
| 12:08 pm on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Remember that those stats are for the "whole" screen. The actual browser window can, and will, be smaller. Sometimes a lot smaller.
| 1:44 pm on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think you have answered your own question:
|800x600 (44%) |
With %'s like that you have to accomodate the lower Res. I know alot of colleagues that have the choice and opt for 800 x 600 just because they find it easier to read. also many people use the MS toolbar which reduces page width further.
| 2:18 pm on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That's some very important information. I was going to give up on 800 x 600 because I thought most prospects with money would have migrated up to higher resolution. However that's too big a risk to take. .. and you never know when your website may be viewed on a smaller screen on a temporary basis for someone who is away from home base.
| 2:33 pm on Dec 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Part of the decision is also what you are presenting. If you are presenting large amounts of text to be read on screen, having the text lines too wide can seriously affect readability.
| 9:47 pm on Jan 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Probably a basic question, but need to know:
How do screen resolutions effect printing? Some sites I can't print the right side of the page, but can view it without scrolling?
| 10:43 am on Jan 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|How do screen resolutions effect printing? Some sites I can't print the right side of the page, but can view it without scrolling? |
Put Simply - they don't.
Your printer will capture the page at any resolution and produce the same results. Try viewing a page at 640X480 and at 1024X768 - the difference is huge, but a print of each will produce the same document. Printer friendly pages need to be low on graphics and fall within the standard print margins of an A4 Page. Alternativley you could ask people viewing the site to print landscape - this will usually capture a page designed for the 800X600 - 1024X768 range. Pages that stretch far off to the right might be halved by the printer - but then they deserve it ;)
| 1:00 am on Jan 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wanted to know the answer to the same question because I had to make a design decision. So I looked at "Onestat.com" who had a press release on June 26 2003 whose summary was "The findings have important implications for web designers"
There stats said based on 2 month average and also indicated that 1024 was increasing:
I took the view that if I designed for 1024x768 my sites would look great for the majority (nearly half)and viewable without scrolling to approx 68%.
I agree this is not good for 1/3 of existing web users who will have to scroll a bit but my site needs all the information I can on a page and limiting to 800 is a waste of space for the majority. PCs these days are defunct within 2-3 years so it would be my opinion that 800x600 will continue to diminish and that 1024 or greater will become the norm as screens get larger. Also bear in mind that TFTs are the latest craze and according to the economist are due to reduce in price by 40% this year alone because of demand. So my prediction is that 1024 (already the dominantb standard) will increase as we all buy larger and larger screens.
| 1:12 am on Jan 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Forgot to mention.
If your site is text based then you could use liquid design (i.e. don't specify pixels) and allow the text to flow into whatever screen resolution it is presented with ... but I still make sure it looks best at 1024.
| 1:39 am on Jan 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Knowing your audience is only a part of it. You must also be aware of your audiencesí expectations. Meaning if a person has an older PC, do they truly expect the best web experience? Through my own experience and findings, most people that view in less than 800x600 realize that they are limiting themselves. If they have to scroll or anything else due to their low resolution then they usually take it more on the PC limits that against the web designer. Though most people now view in 1024x768 the safest layout from my own findings is always 800x600. Like I said most people viewing less than that these days realize that they have a crappy PC or their preference is a minority. 800x600 does not look bad on a 1024x768, and most who view more than that realize that they are ahead of the technology. But in all, flexible layouts are the best. With practice in these layouts you can make a 640x480 look just as good as a 1280x1024. But aligning the right dimensions does take practice.
One thing you should consider though, it the use of browser. Though IE is the norm, browsers like Mozilla are really coming on strong. In this case a resolution in one browser may look different in another.
| 11:54 am on Jan 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Do you design your sites for 600x800 screen resolution? |
Yes, but they stretch
| 1:17 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you do use a fixed size
1024x768 for example resize to 1000x700 and use a smaller size layout (900-970)
I actually stuck with fixed sizes on one of my sites because it segregated the serious actually interested traffic from the crap traffic really quick.
| 4:23 pm on Feb 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"This page is best viewed standing on your head, using IE5.5 or above, at 1024x768 32 bit color, one eye shut, during sunrise and sunset hours, and half drunk. Click HERE for further instructions."
John Fogerty once said his Mother told him that to be a success he should:
"Always play to the cheap seats"
| 7:47 pm on Feb 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Take a look at all the biggest sites on the web, you won't find many that use liquid design, and you won't find many that use more than 750px (to account for right scroll bar in browser) widths. Making around 40% give or take of your site's visitors use horizontal scrolling to view your content does not strike me as a very good idea.
I used to check the screen size stats on my sites, and they haven't changed much in the last few years, still around 40% with 800x600 I see, that's down maybe 10% from 3 years ago, the average user has no use for higher resolutions because they have one application open at a time, probably their email client or browser, and that's it, they don't need to change, it's not that they are 'low end', it's that they aren't power users. I think power users like the readers of this forum tend to forget that most people really don't care about this stuff, they don't change their settings, they are happy with 800x600, it keeps the letters nice and big and easy to read for one thing.
| 5:02 pm on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
one very importent thing is that people with big screens never look at websites in full screen. As said people uses to webspages on one screen side by side..
So I keep up with 600 x 800 and center
| 5:53 pm on Mar 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not saying this will work for everyone but it worked for me.
I switched about 70% of the sites I manage to a
The results after a few years:
all those sites are receiving less spam
less crap traffic and pest robots in the server logs
and increased business (both new and repeat)
I personally don't have a lot of faith in the w3 standards. The one size fits all doesn't always work and it's best (in my experience) to customize each sites look and navigation towards the unique needs of each business and it's customer base. So I treat the look and navigation of each site as unique as how different individual shops in a mall may look.
A bit of a "when in Rome..." approach, but it ties in with basic marketing idea that you tell the customer exactly what you wish for them to do and guide them towards the check out. It's kind of like herding the customers to the point of purchase check out.