Minimum res size to work too?

are there many still on 640 resolutions

[caine]

This question has been asked countless times here on WebmasterWorld, but the question of resolution is constantly evolving (i.e. the vast majority do not use CGA/EGA resolutions). A couple of years ago it was wise to always design for VGA, what about know - what are the numbers?

I'm just looking at the redesign of a site, from an aesthetics and customer confidence point of view, the site is already doing well in the search engines - so this is not a major factor to the redesign (#1's for all the targetted keywords) - however it looks very ugly and unprofesional, you know the stuff that RC will argue for.

What do you think - design for a minimum width of 640 or a minimum of 480.

[Nick_W]

I'd argue to make it liquid but aim for a 'good view' in 800x600 and 1024x728.

If it's truly liquid, lesser rez's should be at least able to use the site aswell..

Nick

[caine]

Nick,

certainly in the past 640 res was always a requisite for navigation, hence they could always see everything, and nothing was out of order, maybe looked large, but tidy.

Pretty much work with a liquid setup, but the design i'm thinking off, would either have a minimum width of 506 pixel or 756 pixel -> and the 756 if utilised would force a horizontal scrll in a VGA res. Hence the reason for numbers.

Regarding the liquid layout - always, i've been building sites on 1600 res, look quite small, sizeable down to 640. This design has a fixed section that will float in the centre though its a fixed width for visual appeal (easy to control its content).

I'm tempted to make it work from SVGA upwards (i.e. 760 minimum). Though i don't won't to lose a potential buyer if they exist, and currently view the web (credit card in hand) on a VGA resolution.

I'm sorting of answering my own question here.

Need opinions on this one - too sway me harder to a decision.

[jbinbpt]

Small monitors seem to have almost completely been replaced, so monitor size isn’t an issue. But a lot of users still run 640 res on their bigger monitors. Some of the comments are that they can see it better or that they actually like the larger icons. It’s always going to be personal preference.
Since you are pleased with the serps, be careful with the additional design space. It’s easy to overload a page because of the additional design space.
Besides…. Doesn’t ugly sell well?
jb

[caine]

I've gone for 760 scaleable upwards, will watch the logs, and see where the site goes from there.

The design is too make a simpler interface for viewers.

[netguy]

In addition to liquid where applicable, 740px is my default width for most fixed designs these days. Since 660px is the printable area, I always try to keep the primary content to the left of the first 660px width.

Here's some info on optimum canvas sizes - without seeing that pesky horizontal scrollbar:
[hotwired.lycos.com...]

Here's a little more on screen resolution trends:
[w3schools.com...]

Steve

[victor]

Don't forget all those rich people with small-screen PDAs.

Get a copy of Opera 7, see what your site looks like when you select view / small screen

[caine]

Victor, i just checked that and it looks very good. - a complete fluke, but very well organised.

[ogletree]

There are still a lot of 800 x 600. My whole office except for maybe 2 or 3 people have 800 x 600. I have not seen a 640 x 480 in a very long time. There are probably more people using IE3 than 640 x 480. I would not worry about the 640 x 480 people. If they are running that res they are used to sites made for larger res.