Monitor Resolutions - personal preferences

[sidyadav]

I've had 800x600 for about 2 years, since I got my computer. Just went over to friends house and saw that he had 1024x768, so had a surf around the web with it, and I've gotta say, even though its big, its crap!

I mean, I've been using 800x600 since years, but never had a visual problem with it, it all just fits, and when I try 1024x768, theres just too much blank space in some web pages, and it just doesn't look "right".

Is it that I'm just used 800x600 or do you all agree, that using 1024x768 just doesn't look right?

[sidyadav]

In the original post "sidyadav" asks about personal preferences, and then goes on to talk about surfing.

Its the same thing. Its what you prefer when you surf or do anything else with your personal preference.
(but in my post, I was mainly asking about surfing)

Sid

[smokeyb]

It's not the same thing at all. The way web pages look is dictated by the site design, it may look better at 800x600 or it may be designed to look better upwards of that. If you work with other software and invariably need more workspace, you just get used to the web viewed at the higher setting and would hopefully never give it a second thought. Your question is like saying "which size/type of car do you like to drive around town in?" The answer would be "small and nippy" but I certainly wouldn't want to drive it "offroad". Sure, you have to get the best vehicle for your particular enviroment, but you can drive a 4x4 in town as well, but not the other way round. So if you ever have to drive offroad, don't buy a "Mini"!

[limbo]

humming to myself - "we are the self preservation society...."

If you spend a lot of your day doing graphic work, having a large resolution/monitor is an essential. So I resize pages to about 1000x700.

At home, when I am surfing, 1152X864 gives me the edge on some sites pages and allows me to test in multi browser at low resolutions with my DW pallettes open.

Anything larger than 1280 and fluid layouts can start to look stretched IMO

[DrDoc]

See, when you use a high screen resolution setting you can still test other resolutions without having to change the display properties. Just use a program like Sizer, and you can right-click on the maximize button in any window and select the new window size.

[mahlon]

1152 with refresh rate of 90, 19" Trinitron.

[smokeyb]

Limbo, I wonder if they still use that as the theme-tune to the new American version of the film? Do you know? Somehow it wouldn't sound the same with Mark Wahlberg singing it!

[photon]

Switched to 1600x1200 on my 17" flat screen primary as a result of reading this thread. I didn't think I'd like it, but I do!

Second monitor is still set at 1024x768 for web testing.

[King of Bling]

We run at 1280x1024 with DVI (Digital video input determines the optimal resolution here).

As for the age-old fixed vs. fluid design battle, we prefer a hybrid of the two. Fixed-width sites will always suffer due to various and ever-changing resolutions. With full-page fluid-width designs, usability/readability can degrade when viewed with a high-res monitor. So try this... set the overall width of the website to about 70%-80%. That should present an easy-to-read site for many resolutions.

[R1chard]

1152x864 for me. I started using that when I found out that the crew at Pixar/RenderMan reckon that "even in a good movie theater only 850-900 lines are visible". If I get a 17-inch PowerBook G4 then I'll probably be using 1440x900.

But anyway, what we prefer is besides the point. Fluid page designs are the way forwards. You cannot predict what an individual will be using, so we have to try to make it modern and a bit more flexible than a stone tablet...