Alphawolf - 2:13 am on Jul 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Admition: Haven't read entire thread. ;)

I'd also state that showing stats of some sort may help...and may confuse.

I think resolution stats are changing as new notebooks start to really sell well. This is from one of my own sites over a month:

1024 x 768 44.97%
800 x 600 24.4%
1280 x 1024 13.63%
1152 x 864 6.45%

My personal preference is to design images a 'bit bigger' than typical 800x600 sizes as far as stock photos and other misc items go.

I never go beyond 760px wide on an image.

That has nothing to do with your client's "concerns" though. :)

This [thepattysite.com] may help them understand a bit better.

It's odd that they don't run different resolutions from their work systems than home systems.

In short, I'd inform them that unless they have stats that show a very strong user base at a certain resolution designing for 800x600 covers the broadest audience.

Although it looks small and has a lot of empty space to them at 1024x768, for people that are used to that resolution it's normal.

Point to cnn and Yahoo. There's plenty of 'empty' space at higher resolutions at those sites and most others.

Personally, I run 1152x864, but my browser windows are set to 800 width.

Another reason to lean more to 800x600 is file size. If you designed a site for them that looked "better" in 1024x768 your images would be larger and therefore longer to download.

It's amazing how disgusting things are in 800x600, but many folks stay there even with 19 inch monitors.

Have fun...

AW