What pixel sizes do you use for your site's "container"?

We're not using resolution specific code, choosing only one. (w=800px?)

[Christopher C]

For the most part our sites have been boring with the focus near entirely on content and low page sizes. For better or worse we're changing that on the current site and putting in all the bells and whistles.

At this point I don't want to provide a design specific to a user's browser. What I want, is to pick one set of pixel dimensions and go with that.

Any thoughts? Here's what I'm looking at:

800px wide container (designer wants 900)
150px high header (includes search + sitemap like links)
150px wide menu
Height scrolls.

Container will be set to align in the center of the page.

[tedster]

You will find that 30% of users or so still use an 800x600 resolution, and that means 750 usable pixels of width, even if you ignore older Mac browsers (744 px). Your choice, but just be well informed. This is NOT a decision I would put in the hands of a graphics person.

I just visited a major retailer's site yesterday that requires 1200px before the side-scroll vanishes. I think that's way too crazy.

[vinzzz]

i use 775px (keep the scrollbar in mind) for fixed size, centered designs...

[mincklerstraat]

between 750 and 780. 800: don't do it, there are many, many users who have this as their max width, and they'll all almost always get a bottom scroller, which is looked upon as one of the top irritations in websites.

[alexmc]

I use 768px. You can create a grid of up to 12 equal columns (you can have less - each will be divisible by 64px)

[PCInk]

If you can use % instead of fixed, it will appear much better in most browsers (in particular, those with a narrower screen size than you decide to design around).

There is a max-width CSS attribute, to trim down any content sections that are too wide to read on wide monitors - although IE does not support this. But there is a JavaScript/CSS workaround if you search for it.

[HarryM]

I use 780px. I would have preferred slightly less, but had to go with that because of certain design restraints. I would advise against anything greater than 780.

[restricted access]

771 pixels. However, macs with small resolution screens run at I think 768 pixels, but most macs have higher resolution now so that's probably not something you have to worry about. We recently got a site by a designer, who picked for some inexplicable reason 850 px. I'd second what tedster says: do not let a designer make this kind of decision, tell the designer the specs and make them work within them.

[encyclo]

I prefer to ensure that there is some "breathing space" on each side of a fixed-width design, even if someone is in 800x600 mode and has, say, the Office toolbar to the side of their screen.

I find anything over 760px too wide, and usually settle for anything between 700px and 740px. It's on the conservative side, but I think it improves the look of a site on a small screen not to be filling the whole available space.

I second tedster's comment - don't let the graphics guy decide. Put your users first and make the site narrow enough to suit their needs.

[Joe Belmaati]

766 pixels.

[PatrickDeese]

I use 728px alot, but I monetize most of my sites with Adsense, and that's the width of the leaderboard ad.

[MatthewHSE]

I use 770px, but also use a javascript "resolution sniffer" to give 1024x768 users an updated stylesheet to increase the width of the content area.

And, aren't the "internet average" 800x600 numbers closer to 40-45% Tedster? I imagine tech sites would have a much lower number. On my site it's just about 50%, but then many of my visitors have older computers . . .

[Christopher C]

Thanks for the advice, we're tweaking it now to fit somewhere inbetween 750-780.

[firstreflex]

748 [webmonkey.wired.com]