Forum Moderators: open
What are your thoughts on which to build for? Is horizontal scrolling really that bad or am I being picky? And if it's for only 16% of users (yes, I realize a small percentage have higher resolution than 1024 x 768) should I not worry about them?
However if its a niche market where people may be more technical or media based they are likely to have bigger monitors.
Choice is yours really, is horizontal scroll bad? yes unless there is a very good reason.
should I not worry about them?
If you're not worried about losing 16% of your potential business, then no.
A wise old egg laid down a simple rule for me once: design to the lowest common denominator. Screen width, browser, platform, plug-in availability, - it is not only a Very Good Idea is is also COURTEOUS to make sure everyone sees your page the same regardless of how few resources they have.
Yes, courteous. When I go to a page on an 800 X 600 monitior and some designer, in all their infinite wisdom and foresight, opens up a window that's 1024 X 786 and has removed all scrollbars, so large that I can't access the submit buttons, or design a page that forces me to scroll sideways, it seems rude. Rude because basically is says, "this is how the world should be, if you can't see it that way, too bad." Personally I think it's more annoying than pop-up advertising.
I don't know how Mac users get through a day on the web, there are so many "too bad for you" sites out there it is probably very disheartening. Justifying the decision with stats really makes no sense to me. If you have a handful of unhappy visitors, their experience is every vit as important as the paying visitors.
IMO, If you really want to fill up your page, a fluid layout to 95-100% is the way to go, and your developer should have the wit to understand how to do that. I try to design to that spec with a minimum width of 600 or so.
I had an interesting event yesterday, I helped someone de-virus a computer with by a 15" (600) monitor. So the 15'a have not completely left us.
But I'm not sure I'd go 100% for designing to the lowest common denominator. It's pretty much a good concept, but I think that, like most things, it can be taken too far sometimes. For instance, on my sites, I draw the line at supporting 640x480 resolution. To me, there are few enough people using that resolution anymore that it's worth a little horizontal scrolling for them in return for the added benefit of more efficient screen use for 800x600 and up.
I hosted with a company once that used some sort of javascript to resize my browser window to full-screen just to view my control panel and support tickets. It drove me crazy because I normally browse maximized, and in its effort to make sure I was using a full browser window, this thing actually un-maximized the window and shrunk it down a few pixels on each side. I eventually adjusted my Firefox settings to not allow windows to be resized by Javascript. There was absolutely no reason for them to implement that kind of script and it was very irritating. That's the kind of thing that I won't use at all.
To answer your question, I would say to design your site with 800x600 in mind if you want to go with a fixed-width layout. On the other hand, a fluid site will expand and contract according to the available width in the browser window. Both approaches are okay, and each have their own strengths and weaknesses. I definitely would not design a fixed-width site for 1024x768 resolution, unless of course it was for a corporate intranet or something where resolution would be administratively decided anyway.
I draw the line at supporting 640x480 resolution
I support it in that I design specific columns so that continual back and forth side scrolling won't be required. But a one time side scroll for a 640 user is something I don't worry about
If you want to go for a fixed-width design, you are limited to a maximum width of about 760px. Of course, a fluid layout (between 80% and 95%) is best, but it is often mach harder to achieve, especially when dealing with the pixel-perfect requirements of a corporate website. It takes a much more web-savvy graphic artist to understand the concepts of fluid width sections rather than placing everything in a fixed grid as you would a poster or printed page.
I support it in that I design specific columns so that continual back and forth side scrolling won't be required.
Good catch, thanks for the clarification (which I should have thought to mention myself). Often, the right-hand column can be as simple as a skyscraper banner or some other non-vital content. That way, if it's not being seen, it's still no big deal.
It is sadly still not a realistic proposition to design for 1024x768 - you would be excluding a significant part of your audience. The problem is not diminishing either, as new ways of viewing sites are coming through, for example a web browser in a phone or PDA - where the screen is much smaller than even 640x480.
What kind of audience are you aiming for? if its your average web user/shopper I have to say 1024x768, working in a fast moving business monitoring a network of machines internal and external (whilst trying to squeeze web design in :) the majority of resolutions are set to a default of 1024x768.
Moving with such a fast enviroment if the public/clients require a site/software specifically for a phone/PDA platform then it is created for that enviroment only.
As you say 62% of your users use a 1024x768 res, getting more content across to your 62% can only be a good thing..
As you say 62% of your users use a 1024x768 res, getting more content across to your 62% can only be a good thing..
Depends on whether or not that extra space can make the 62% spend 38% more. If not, the site's losing potential profit when the 38% using 800x600 go to a competitor.
