Forum Moderators: open
The problem is that a lot of my content doesn't fit within 800 pixels, and the next logical step up would be to plan for 1,024 pixels, which would be perfect as far as I'm concerned, but I've never seen anyone endorse this screen size here on WW.
I haven't seen the percentages for screen resolutions lately (my stats software doesn't show this). Will I be alienating too many visitors if I code for this resolution?
The problem is that a lot of my content doesn't fit within 800 pixels, and the next logical step up would be to plan for 1,024 pixels, which would be perfect as far as I'm concerned, but I've never seen anyone endorse this screen size here on WW.
The problem is you would be taking a step backwards by moving into a fixed width environment. Right now in a fluid layout, you are appealing to a much broader audience. You do alienate a certain portion of your visitors when you moved into a fixed environment.
Here are the target areas for various screen resolutions...
640x480 Maximized - 600x300
800x600 Maximized - 760x420
832x624 Maximized - 795x470
1024x768 Maximized - 955x600
Look at the top sites that people go to and do what they do.
Well, here is a random sampling of the top sites that I could think of:
ebay fixed ~ 850 pixels
CNN fixed ~ 900 pixels
Microsoft variable
Google Variable
Yahoo fixed ~ 800 pixels
NY TImes Fixed ~ 830 pixels
Houston Chronicle Variable
LA Times Fixed ~ 1000 pixels
Chicago Tribune Fixed ~ 900 pixels
Boston Herald Fixed ~ 800 pixels
Fox News Fixed ~ 900 pixels
MySpace Fixed ~ 800 pixels
Blogger Fixed ~ 800
MySQL Variable
9 of these 13 use a fixed width layout, which to me indicates that it is acceptable to use a fixed width design. Most of them use 800 pixels as their fixed width, but I would think that is indicative of the era in which they were built as much as anything (they are so last year!).
I really like the look of the sites that are variable width, but this will definately be harder to maintain.
Anyone have an idea of what percentage of users use each standard screen resolution?
If you know the majority of your visitors are visiting at a certain resolution (such as 1024) and you're not up to the task (skills, time, both, etc) to making a dynamically styled site then the acceptable level to go with is 800px static width.
I have seen about 30% of traffic on sites I have had access to with people still browsing at 800x600. Many people still have small 15 and even 14 inch screens to which they dislike using 1024.
If your site is dynamic you still should ensure it renders correctly at 800x600. If you go with a static layout then you're adding more conditions in the other sense.
John
I will tell you that I alway use 1024x768 but I don't like to have my browser completely open. I Like to have several windows going at a time and it seems easier if they are tiled. So even if you see me browsing your site and see I have 1024x768 that doesnt mean I am giving it all to you.
Another point no one has mentioned is that you may be trying to cram TOO mych stuff onto one page. A page loaded side to side with info can be information overload. That is especially true for people new to your site.
There is a point besides the Net. Owners of 1600*1200 are reacher than guys with 800*600 usually.
Statistic instead of divination - that's the way of web-jedi :)
In spite of its drawbacks, I prefer a % width. Like 95% or 100%. And build content to flow as gracefully as possible in all it's permutations.
our content sites work fine, we have never had a complaint. the best content site imo is the bbc - fixed width 770px.
we also use % css so people can scale fonts.
I hadn't mentioned that part of the problem is that every day there is about 200 pages of user-created content added to this web site. We allow the users to add content through an online HTML editor and we don't have many restrictions on the formatting of the content, so we occasionally get some radically formatted content submitted.
Sometimes the content is very short, sometimes it is very long. Sometimes it's pre-formatted to contain only a few words per line. Sometimes the content is submitted in tables or with DIV tags which refuse to line-wrap, which makes the pages very W-I-D-E. We have an option to remove all HTML formatting during the editorial review process to take care of the worst of the problems, but we hate to change the formatting from what the author had originally intended.
This all adds to the complexity of this issue for us. The root of the problem is that with so much diverse content, it's hard to come up with a system which takes it all into account. What we want is something that no matter what is displayed, it still looks good.
I still can hardly bring myself to use fixed-width pages so I'm experimenting with different variable width layouts. I think fixed-width is acceptable these days, but it means that there is wasted screen real estate for many viewers, and with so much content to display, I hate to do that.
I'll keep you posted.
