Forum Moderators: phranque
I've been building my sites towards 1024x768 or greater, and I started wondering how many people are still using 800x600 or less.
I set my "lowest common denominator" at 800 X 600 with a relatively graceful degradation to 600 W.
In fact, whenever possible I shoot for 100% width, and make sure it compresses down to 600 wide gracefully. While it's true this can present some weirdnesses on huge monitors, overall it seems to work out best.
Now I'm seeing 1024x768 pull ahead of all other resolutions. Eventually, I think 1024x768 is going to be the defacto minimum resolution. However, I don't see it happening until 2007.
I think that this trend has been accelerated by 1)proliferation of laptops (many have this as the default resolution) and 2) the decrease in costs of 17/19 inch LCD monitors.
I think that this trend has been accelerated by 1)proliferation of laptops (many have this as the default resolution) and 2) the decrease in costs of 17/19 inch LCD monitors.
I'd say OS with default settings play bigger role -- many people have no clue that resolution can be changed! Windows XP had 1024x768 by default.
It’s all very exhausting and trivial in the grand scheme of things. Especially trivial since such a logical solution exists to remove the problem totally.
Book answer: Go fluid
It’s the book answer for a reason.
It’s the book answer for a reason.
There are good reasons for avoiding fluid designs, too. My site looks equally great for both resolutions, which many fluid designs can't claim. And using those two fixed-width layouts results in some pretty clear advantages, such as the sidebars staying a usable width without expanding to be too wide, and maximizing the actual viewing area. And it's not that complex, once it's set up.
I consider my solution a happy medium between fixed-width and fluid. No, it's not perfect, but none of the alternatives were either. In the end, it comes down to analyzing the situation and needs, and making an informed choice of the available options.