What size do you optimize your website for?

800x600? 1024x768? or....

[tomld2]

I am wondering what size you all optimize your websites for? Many people still use an 800x600 setting, so it's common to cater to all users and design for 800x600. But, I am wondering what everyone else does?

Thanks
Tom

[BlobFisk]

A liquid or fluid design is one which makes the maximum use of the available browser space, regardless of the users screen resolution or if they have the browser maximised or in a window state.

This sort of design does not use a set width (eg 750px) container for the pages content, but uses variable width containers (eg 2 columns at 50% width each), or a mixture of set width and variable width containers (eg a column of 200px width and a second column which takes up the rest of the available width).

A fluid table based design would have a table 100% wide and 100% high - which would fill the entire browser window. In general, when fluid designs are referenced, they generally mean ones developed using CSS.

[papadelta]

Thank you BlobFisk

<slopes off to re-code stylesheet>

[domoftheuk]

800x600 is becoming a uncommon screen size now. More people use 1024x768 setting.

[willybfriendly]

800x600 is becoming a uncommon screen size now. More people use 1024x768 setting.

I was just looking at stats last week. Still running about 45%, which is far from rare.

WBF

[smokeyb]

You know, the odd thing is, that when I have checked out the homepages of the people I most respect in this forum (not that I don't respect everyone), they all seem to have their pages designed for 800x600? The pages are 'fluid' sure enough, but the content always seems to stick to the left or centre, with wasted space? I figure this is to maintain 'layout', but then doesn't that contradict 'fluid'?

[domoftheuk]

ok 45% of people use 800x600 but how many use 1024x768 and anyway move with technology

[robert adams]

It all depends on what your site is for. If you are trying to sell something, do you want to tell 45% of your prospects that you don't want their money? I don't.
If the site is just for your own amusement or to show your friends what a great web designer you are, sure, do it however you want.

robert

[willybfriendly]

ok 45% of people use 800x600 but how many use 1024x768 and anyway move with technology

Surprisingly, about 45% use 1024/768 too.

But, more to the point, why design in such a way that on will lose half their audience. If it doesn't work on 800X600 then it doesn't work for a lot of people.

WBF

[WebDavelopment]

Personal site -> liquid pure CSS

Work Site -> Not liquid under 800x600 or more specifically 735x410, and liquid over 800x600. the set size is for older browsers. (we don't want NS4 to look like NS2)

Both sizes and browsers supported were determind by stats. Both user resolution and actual browser viewable area were measured.

[zappy]

hi all, am new to this board. i think being fluid is good. but at the end of the day, i think it is impossible to satisfy all types of users over all the different mediums. if your site has a table with 8 columns full of text desc data in them, i dun think adjusting the site width would help at all, especially not to users on a cellphone.

[robert adams]

good point, however, 8 columns of text would be a very poor design choice.
:) I couldn't resist.

robert

[victor]

ok 45% of people use 800x600 but how many use 1024x768 and anyway move with technology

Screen res tells you the maximum area a user may be using. It doesn't tell you the actual.

I run 1024x768. But my browser windows are very rarely maximized. So the space I make available for you to display your wares is:

a) unknown to you
b) smaller than you think
c) not the shape you expect

If a site isn't flexible enough to put on a good show under those very simple conditions, I don't worry about that. I just click onwards to the next one,

[BlobFisk]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, zappy!