These lower screen resolutions may not be used as much by desktop machines, but I bet there is an increasing number of small screen devices being used... phones, handhelds etc.
Also, a lot of corporations may still have "server" environments where a larger screen was never needed, so they might be running 800x600.
There are some sites that give these statistics, but these are only statistics for visitors to that particular site which may not be representative of your particular customer.
I see about 5% of visitors with 800x600 on a b2c site, about 1% on a b2b site. YMMV.
I have 8.5% viewing in this resolution. Mostly consumer visitors, but around 10% enterprise. Software utility and security site.
People with poor vision do not like resolutions larger than 800x600. I don't think you can ever expect to be able to drop that resolution size.
it's ironic that we've been waiting for years for people to drop the small 800x600 size, and now that it's finally getting closer along comes a plethora of even smaller screens like handhelds.
makes me long for the 800's back again
B2C site stats I was just looking at today show 6% for 800x600, which is consistent with the above.
I've yet to find a newspaper site that's not > 800px.
> is it worth the trouble <
Just float the site. If many 'corporate' sites don't, that's their problem. Many are worried about the ad revenue, and clogging your bandwidth with graphics and Google.
The small devices might benefit from a particular style sheet. But there's also the ability to slide the page around. You just put your finger on the screen, or maybe others on a touchpad. So I think I'd just float the elements on the page.
...And users don't necessarily browse maximised. So rather than wondering what size their screen is, may be an idea to ask what size their window is...? Browser Viewport Statistics [webmasterworld.com]
this is what i get on my top site
this link is a bit old but maybe still relavent. [w3schools.com...]
i still design for 800x600, but of course fluid is the way to go
Rarely... those low res's are quickly getting phased out, although it's nice to sort of make sites viewable in those formats...
cater to 1024 X 768 but make you site at least viewable for those at 800X600
if your site doesn't scroll left or right at 800X600 you're ok. Our research has found that VERY few people are willing to scroll horizontally however people are ok with a lot of blank space to the left or right of their screen especially those with large monitors and larger resolutions.
Again - just float the site. And see previous. Let it be as wide or narrow, as tall or short, as the viewer wishes.
As already stated people don't always have the windows maximized. Regardless it is a good idea where possible to set up pages so they can be scaled up or down and not break.
i've just noticed that webmasterworld has it set at 80% of the screen width, or something like that. and if you resize your browswer to 800 then it still stays at 80%.
so it just goes to show that we shouldn't get overly worried about this stuff because people will still come to your site if it's good enough. i've been coming here for ages and i've only just noticed.
|i've just noticed that webmasterworld has it set at 80% of the screen width, or something like that. and if you resize your browswer to 800 then it still stays at 80%. |
I think it's gone slightly narrower just recently - wasn't it full browser width a while back?! Anyway could be wrong.
But, more importantly, the type of users who are likely to be visiting webmasterworld are more likely to have average or bigger screens. But then again, worldwide that might not be the case I guess?
I currently design mainly for 1024x768, but I try to keep all the vital stuff (navigation, content) to the left and all the additional stuff on the right so that the user doesn't necessarily have to side-scroll to use the site.
Have to agree there with Gomvents. Horizontal scrolling can be painfully irritating.
I always design web pages with 800 x 600 resolution consideration. I think this is a "safe" resolution.