Days of 800x600 Ending?

Anyone Designing Sites for Higher Resolutions?

[jimh009]

I was looking over my stats tonight and realized that only about 15% of my visitors are hitting my site with a resolution of 800x600 or less...a number that just continues to go down and down and down by the quarter.

I've noticed that popular sites like Yahoo/YouTube/New York Times and many others are all having resolution sizes greater than 800 pixels in width.

As such, if popular sites like these can broaden their minimum resolution size width wise, and with fewer users going the 800x600 route by the month, I've begun to wonder why I'm still designing sites for this resolution.

I'm giving thought to kicking up the minimum resolution size I use to around 900 pixels wide.

Anyways, was wondering what people think of abandoning the 800x600 resolution? And if you have already done so...what have been your results?

Oh, the site this will be on is a photoblog/blog/travel guide essentially...not a e-commerce site.

Thanks

Jim

[cmarshall]

It became the standard resolution over 10 years ago

Not for Web pages. We just recently went to 800 X 600 from 550 X 400 as recommended sizes.

Web years don't hold to Moore's Law. We have a pretty significant amount of "hysteresis" that is caused by a slow "letting go" process from our users.

In the case of the sites I do, I have to be very careful about this.

In our next site, we'll probably be specifying IE5.5/Win98 as our minimum configuration. I'm pretty good at writing XHTML 1.1, CSS and AJAX that will degrade well, and I'll probably use XSLT to get the server to jump through hoops, instead of insisting our visitors do it. It will be quite some time before we can expect our visitors' browsers to render the XSLT. We'll also be shoehorning our output into WML 1.0 and 2.0 formats as well.

[DXL]

As long as I continue to use an 800x600 resolution myself, I'll keep designing sites at 800x600. Do you realize how many sites there are on the web that are already designed for that resolution and probably won't upgrade their layout in the next five years?

I see no reason for me to change how I develop sites for people just yet.

[Dabrowski]

I'm not suggesting that you rewrite sites you wrote years ago, but for new sites that are just in development why not take advangate of higher screen resolutions where possible?

If developers started writing sites that take advantage of higher resolution images, better graphical layouts, etc.... it would drive the standards higher to where they should be.

In the same way game developers write games that require consistently higher CPU and GPU speeds, that drive the likes of Intel, ATI and others to develop the hardware.

Shouldn't we as developers be driving the standards, not settling for standards that were laid out for us years ago?

[Status_203]

If developers started writing sites that take advantage of higher resolution images, better graphical layouts, etc.... it would drive the standards higher to where they should be.

No, it would drive visitors to other sites that consider what the visitor wants rather than what the "designer" wants.

Shouldn't we as developers be driving the standards, not settling for standards that were laid out for us years ago?

I thought that was exactly what made IE6 such a pain. I think the relevant term is "hubris".

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I think days of 800x600 should be declared over.

So do I but it doesn't matter what you or I think. We must design for our users.

Shouldn't we as developers be driving the standards, not settling for standards that were laid out for us years ago?

As in other walks of life it's a case of supply and demand. A large percentage of people don't know anything about screen resolutions so they won't be changing whatever you do. If you build a site with a resolution that is too high for them they will see a site that doesn't fit their screen and they won't like it.

There are also a lot of people in offices and factories whose screen size is determined by replacement policies and IT departments over which they have no control. Unfortunately we will have to wait until all the 800x600 screens die off before we can move onwards and upwards.

[Achernar]

The main two points that most here seems to forget is that users don't always maximize the browser's window (by choice), or have a certain amount of space used by toolbars and sidebars. And unless the statistics about resolution used by visitors also reflect actual height and width of the display area, you don't really know what is out there.
Second ; most site are difficult to follow/read if they use too much width (others have already pointed the way newspapers divide the text in columns).

[Dabrowski]

Good point Achernar, I'm glad you brought that up. In that case my method would still work but you'd have to adjust the size based on body.clientWidth instead.

I like the way FF doesn't use any side borders so your site can actually reach the edges of the screen. I know that doesn't really have anything to do with the thread, I just thought I'd mention it.

[DXL]

If developers started writing sites that take advantage of higher resolution images, better graphical layouts, etc.... it would drive the standards higher to where they should be.

You're suggesting that bigger is better, though, and I don't think everyone would agree with that. Higher resolution doesn't equal higher standards.

In the same way game developers write games that require consistently higher CPU and GPU speeds, that drive the likes of Intel, ATI and others to develop the hardware.

And notice that you're still left with plenty of people unhappy with the fact that they have to shell out a few hundred extra dollars to acquire a new video card, or processor, or other hardware required to get the most out of a new game. Improving a computer's processor might benefit those of us who use computers for web design, so its a win-win situation for gamers and developers. But developing a site for higher resolution settings doesn't necessarily improve our surfing experience, so its not a win-win situation for everyone.

[cmarshall]

We'll just have to take a long drink of the black coffee called "reality."

We get all used to how fast CPU/GPU, etc. evolves, yet we're pretty much at the outer limits of even that.

How many people have Vista Glass running? I only have one person here running it, and I run an image processing software development shop. We have to be very careful not to develop exclusively for the high end.

As I stated earlier, I do NPO sites, and some of these customers still run Win98/IE5. Not that many of them, but it will be quite some time before we can write them off.

It just depends on your target market.

I'll be doing 800 X 600 for at least the next couple of years. I may do some adaptive layout, but I don't want to expand my text areas to full screen width, even if the visitors do have big honkin' monitors.

[Dabrowski]

DXL, not suggesting that bigger is better as such, but higher resolution means more detail in the same space, which treated properly can mean a visually improved space.

And I call anyone a liar who can tell me they'll have to shell out money to switch their display to 1024x768.

Anyone.

Only one person in this thread has actually said he still uses a screen resolution of 800x600, and I would be highly surprised if that wasn't a typo. ;)

[MatthewHSE]

I've tried several things over the years to accommodate various screen resolutions. I don't like completely fluid designs because they tend to get *too* wide at, say, 1280x1024. On the other hand, the standard ~730px widths for 800x600 users are too narrow for 1024x768.

I once tried to get the best of both worlds by detecting window width with JavaScript, which then gave an alternative stylesheet to folks who could use a wider layout. I ran into problems with that and only tried it the one time.

Normally, I design a fluid header and footer, with a fixed-width content area that works at 800x600. The header and footer go clear across the page, which gives a feeling of expansiveness and "full-screenness" to those at higher resolutions, while still keeping the content down to a width that even 800x600 users can see easily.

On my most recent site, I designed it "for" 800x600 - but only the "content" area. I added an extra sidebar on the right that is only visible to those with higher resolution. It seems to be working well.

The next site I design may well be optimized for 1024x768. We'll see...

<edit> Just saw this:

The main two points that most here seems to forget is that users don't always maximize the browser's window (by choice), or have a certain amount of space used by toolbars and sidebars.

I would be very interested if anyone here has ever seen Joe Surfer using his browser in a non-maximized state, or if not actually "maximized," then at least large enough to count as maximized for all practical purposes. Speaking for myself, I have seen an average computer user browsing with a non-maximized browser exactly one time, and I have never seen someone browsing with a sidebar open.

Toolbars, of course, are an entirely different matter, as most folks seem to simply accept the sudden and unexpected addition of a toolbar or two as just part of "the Internet!" ;)

</edit>

[edited by: MatthewHSE at 9:22 pm (utc) on April 2, 2007]

[The_Hat]

Here are my browser width stats.

March page views 1,442,121

1. 1000 to 1499 57.4%
2. 800 to 899 18.0%
3. 750 to 799 10.6%
4. 900 to 999 7.1%
5. 700 to 749 1.5%
6. 550 to 599 1.4%
7. 600 to 649 1.2%
8. 650 to 699 1.1%
9. 1500 or More 1.0%
10. 500 to 549 0.3%
11. 450 to 499 0.2%
12. 400 to 449 0.1%
13. 300 to 399 0.1%
14. Unspecified 0.1%
15. 200 to 299 0.0%
16. 100 to 199 0.0%

We have recently begun work on a new design with 900 wide formatted pages.. I personally think we are stepping on the line just a wee bit with what our market can bear..

I have seen stats that show "internet wide" that the stats for wide browser are greater than what we show. And that is precisily why the big boys have already adopted it, they take a much larger cross section on internet viewership than some might..

In the end the question of whether or not to go wider depends completely upon YOUR stats..

[Dabrowski]

You missed 900-999?

[cmarshall]

I would be very interested if anyone here has ever seen Joe Surfer using his browser in a non-maximized state, or if not actually "maximized," then at least large enough to count as maximized for all practical purposes. Speaking for myself, I have seen an average computer user browsing with a non-maximized browser exactly one time, and I have never seen someone browsing with a sidebar open.

I do it all the time, but my name's not Joe.

[The_Hat]

Number four?

Listed in order of percentage.

<edit>and I am normally browsing with the window maximized and the favorites side window open</edit>

[edited by: The_Hat at 9:41 pm (utc) on April 2, 2007]

[ebound]

My Stats For The Year

Traffic: 400,000 Uniques
Audience: Non-tech, Business Professionial

1024 x 768 - 51.34%
1280 x 1024 - 12.74%
1280 x 800 - 10.59%
800 x 600 - 9.26%
1152 x 864 - 3.29%
1440 x 900 - 3.23%
1280 x 768 - 2.21%
1680 x 1050 - 1.72%
1400 x 1050 - 1.18%
Other - 4.4%

[born2drv]

I'm redesigning my site layouts, I sell high end widgets. My new layout will have 1000px fixed width, centered. I'm not going this route to make the snobs and their big monitors happy. I need the width to add more intereactive features... and I want visitors to intereact the website without scrolling down the page too often.

If you have a website like a news/blog site or maybe some local pizza shop and you think you may want to get people with handheld devices to surf then sure keep it at 800px wide or maybe even slim down to 640. But I don't expect people to be purchasing my high end widgets on their cell phones any time soon.

[bwnbwn]

Well I haven't checked this in some time but my eyes were opened by this post...
66.91% 1024x768
19.81% 1280x1024
6.74% 800x600
3.58% 1152x864
2.85% Unknown
0.11% 640x480

Time to make it bigger

[The_Hat]

F.Y.I.

My stats are from the online edition of a Midwestern USA daily newspaper... So we have a pretty good cross section of users but mostly (or entirely) from the local region.

[edited by: The_Hat at 9:54 pm (utc) on April 2, 2007]

[cmarshall]

66.91% 1024x768

That's a resolution that requires an 800 X 600 layout.

[Powdork]

My important sites have two (or more) flash sizes backed up by 1 html version set to 760 pixel width. There's no sense serving up 2 html sizes since most of the people that don't see the flash also don't have js enabled. My older html sites have three steps at three different resolutions with three different css files.

66.91% 1024x768

That's a resolution that requires an 800 X 600 layout.

Forgive me, but why?

[edited by: Powdork at 11:01 pm (utc) on April 2, 2007]

[Dabrowski]

Number four?

The_Hat, sorry, missed it.

I do it all the time, but my name's not Joe

That's a resolution that requires an 800 X 600 layout

We'll just have to take a long drink of the black coffee called "reality."

No, your name is not Joe, but you are a developer. Exactly how many end-users have you seen surfing in any browser non-maximised? To the nearest 0.5 should do.

And yes, please tell everybody why a 1024x768 resolution requires an 800x600 layout?

And...what plane are you on?

My new layout will have 1000px fixed width

Time to make it bigger

Born2drv, bwbwn, finally people talking sense. P.S., What exactly is a widget?

[Achernar]

I would be very interested if anyone here has ever seen Joe Surfer using his browser in a non-maximized state, or if not actually "maximized," then at least large enough to count as maximized for all practical purposes. Speaking for myself, I have seen an average computer user browsing with a non-maximized browser exactly one time, and I have never seen someone browsing with a sidebar open.

I've seen (friends and acquaintances) some combination of non-maximized and sidebar. They are not the majority, but are more widespread that I initially though.
It never bothered me but I'm in the process of adding statistics about this on my sites.
So far I've come with this code :

var db=document.body, s='s='+screen.availWidth+'x'+screen.availHeight+'&'+((window.innerWidth)? 'i='+innerWidth+'x'+innerHeight : 'c='+db.clientWidth+'x'+db.clientHeight);

[danny]

I never have my browser windows maximised. Whether on 1280x1024 or 1920x1200, I have two browser windows that are about 950 wide.

Most people using smaller displays do maximise browser windows, but I expect that to change as monitors get larger. In most cases, using 1600 wide windows just isn't really practical anyway.

My approach is to use fluid layouts, or to design for about 900 to 950 in such a way that nothing critical is lost for users with 800x600 (or 1024x768 with space lost to sidebars and scroll bars).

[Kufu]

I've been doing all my sites for 800x600, but have very recently switched from 775 to 900 width.

Whoever said that a couple of more years and the 800x600 resolution will be mostly gone has it about right.

[swa66]

The screen resolution of 800x600 will likely go soon or later, but that does not mean the browser window will get more pixels on that large screen monitor. It's not because the full width widescreen 30" monitor does 2.5K pixels across that's the browser will get them all, nor that the user will want to read lines that long.

Having experience with feedback from a site that switched to a wide screen layout, take great care: users do not like you switching to a wider layout, not even the tech savvy ones.

875 width is here to stay for a long while IMHO, or become fluid as CSS support matures (basically as IE6 finally dies off).

[Dabrowski]

Good point about the widescreen. Probably best to use a centered width to avoid overly stretched pages. Maybe even base the page on height?

Maybe someone should suggest an max-aspect-ratio for CSS3.

[cmarshall]

Forgive me, but why?

1024 - 800 = 224
768 - 600 = 168

Let's start with the Y-axis:

Typical menu bar = 40 pixels

168 - 40 = 128

All that junk at the top of a browser window = minimum 80 pixels

128 - 80 = 48

Status bar = 16 pixels

48 - 16 = 32

Extra room around a non-maximized browser = 16 pixels top and bottom.

Assuming (incorrectly) that the user doesn't have 12 malware-dripping toolbars in their browser, we have a total of 600 pixels left.

Now, the X-axis:

You have a bit more to play with.

Assuming that the browser is not maximized (on Macs, it never is, and not one single one of my Windows-centric employees or family members ever browses maximized), you need at least 64 pixels for the side icons.

1024 - 64 = 960

Vertical scroll bar = 16 pixels

960 - 16 = 944

Extra room for a non-maximized browser = 32 pixels on each side (You really do need more horizontal than vertical room. I need at least 80 pixels a side)

944 - 64 = 880

That gives you an extra 80 pixels horizontal.

[Dabrowski]

We just recently went to 800 X 600 from 550 X 400 as recommended sizes

So in other words you are designing for a 1024x768 screen res?

[cmarshall]

So in other words you are designing for a 1024x768 screen res?

Yup. That's a pretty safe bet with our target audience, and even if they have a bigger screen, we have (Fisher-Price for Windows) Windows XP, and (Freakin' HUGE Icons) Windows Vista to take up that extra real estate.

Plus, wander around your non-techhie friends' homes one day and take a gander at their screens.

It can be an endarkening experience.