Forum Moderators: phranque
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
However I either make the layout liquid so people can read it on smaller resolutions. Or I design for larger resolutions however keep the 800 resolution in mind and take care that the main information displayed on the page is fully readable on a 800px wide screen without horizontal scrolling. So ususally I put a third navigation or additional information that is not vital for using the site on the right. Like news, latest articles and so on.
My personal opinion is that ...
W-I-D-E S-C-R-E-E-N W-E-B-S-I-T-E-S
... with too much going on in them are distracting, unnattractive and difficult to follow. There is often too much to take in on a single screen. Viewing information like this is not intuitive. That is why broadsheet newspapers are almost a thing of the past.
I use a larger resolution monitor but I don't consider the space at the side of the screen to be wasted. (I can use it again you know.) Also, the scale of an 800x600 screen is pretty close to A4/Letter size paper so it is familiar and easy to read. I am sure that I am not alone in this. KISS!
I recently rolled out a four column layout, 900px, loads of room - nice grid... The target market: designers. I don't know a single 'creative' that uses a 800 width resolution. Yesterday I finished a comp for a company selling insulation and water proofing products: 770px fixed.
(Personally I try to avoid using totally liquid layouts or max & min + JS. I am tinkering with scalable pages though.)
It is totally reasonable to consider moving into a wider layout - it gives you more to play with; but while there are still so many with low res the choice should an informed one based on a little research on your user base... my rule of thumb: if any doubt is there, play it safe.
Times Online relaunch: Ask the Designers. Tomaso Capuano and Jon Warden are the designers responsible for the new look of Times Online. Here they talk lime green, iTunes playlists and Web 2.0.
[timesonline.co.uk...]
Often find fixed width, narrower sites look a tad old fashioned. Don't these people know about variable widths etc? I've long wondered. Reading this thread, clearly, most or many do.
Been using fluid designs - and yeah, piffling audiences compared to many folk here - but bearing in mind narrower monitors while figuring most are now wider. Not getting complaints; and I do check sites on other folks' computers, make adjustments when needed. Generally 3 columns, so main text can't get too stretched till on humungous monitors with browsers v wide too.
Times redesign interesting.
Just checked Amazon, and width varying as change my browser window (links on left "suffering" most as narrow the window; main content not varying overmuch).
I have also just started to use picture images either 1024 or 1200 wide - basically these are for people to use as wallpaper or whatever and hopefully they will know how to resize the images if they are too large for their screens.
Clearly they have decided to take the hit with regard to 800x600. Good on them! But then they can afford to sacrifice potential traffic until people move on up. Let them drive this, I'll play safe.
Incidentally, It just occurred to me that I personally, have to be extremely interested in the content of a site if it requires me to scroll horizontally to see it. Normally I quickly hit the back button and I don't think I am alone in this.
Ecommerce: 800x600
All others: 1024x768
Quotes from Dabrowski's post on the first page:
Fluid layouts are most effiecient as they take all of whatever space is available.
Even on 1280 x 1024, the lines on this forum are too wide to read. But I prefer my browser maximised. I could write some user CSS to keep this site a certain width, or reduce the browser window of course. But I don't think letting text flow out to the sides is a good idea, due to the longer line lengths it creates on many sites I see. Some pages require the browser maximised though, so I don't want to be constantly changing the width of the window to match each site.
I'd avoid fluid layouts because the screen width could be anything. What if a 3000px wide monitor comes out?
Never seen anyone surf with their browsers not maximised myself.
Apple are working on Leopard (OS X) which is able to ignore the one-screen-pixel = one-code-pixel rule and scale anything upwards smoothly. So you could have a 200dpi screen and set the desktop to act as if it was 1024 wide. This will mean smoother fonts and more detail.
Vista should be able to do the same, as it's now rendered from the graphics card, at least in Aero. Has anyone used it to enlarge a small fixed-width website to full screen? Does it work?
Henry0, unfortunately if JS is disabled there is no way to pass this information to stats programs. I really hope someone will correct me on this cos I would also really like to know!
CSS offers media queries, but they only work in Opera, I believe. These enable you to set styles based on the screen width. If every browser supported this, we wouldn't need to use Javascript.
like one of my supervisors who needs the low resolution to be able to read the print onscreen
If they are running on a higher resolution screen, setting it to 800 x 600 will hamper using Windows. Instead they could enlarge system fonts, browser fonts, etc.
Surely if people can't read the print onscreen, they set their font size bigger right? Oh, wait a minute, everyone out there has used css to set a default of 12px, so browser font size control doesn't work any more. Or worse it works on some of your page making it look really crap. Incidentally this also goes against various disability regulations for poor sighted people like Beagle's supervisor.
The users should be using IE7 or Opera, which can zoom in the whole page. Or Firefox, which has no problems with enlarging fonts set in pixels. ONLY ie6 has this issue.
I like the way FF doesn't use any side borders so your site can actually reach the edges of the screen.
You can do this in IE6 as well by removing the border on the HTML element, but sadly it doesn't work in IE7!
And I call anyone a liar who can tell me they'll have to shell out money to switch their display to 1024x768.
Lots of people will have to pay to increase their screen size, by buying a new monitor. Liars? I don't think so. Their PCs may not even have graphics cards suitable for high-resolutions, so they will need to buy a whole new PC as well.
If I want to upgrade my laptop beyond 800 x 600, it will cost me hundreds of pounds. That's no lie.
Luckily I have a main PC which runs at 1280 x 1024.
MatthewHSE:
I have never seen someone browsing with a sidebar open.
My boss does all the time. He has the Firefox Bookmarks panel open.
born2drv:
But I don't expect people to be purchasing my high end widgets on their cell phones any time soon.
Why not? The mobile web is taking off. Look at the iPhone, which can display desktop-sized web pages and zoom in on them. It's foolish for any business to not think about cell phones, unless they want to lose potential customers, or their site simply doesn't work on a smaller device.
BeeDeeDubbleU:
Also, the scale of an 800x600 screen is pretty close to A4/Letter size paper so it is familiar and easy to read.
I've always wondered why screens aren't made taller, like a sheet of A4 paper. This would let you read down a lot more without scrolling, and the width wouldn't be such an issue. I know you can get screens which rotate, but not many. Widescreen just seems wrong to me.
The Times has recently redesigned it's homepage and does not cater for 800 width viewers anymore.
I've always wondered why screens aren't made taller, like a sheet of A4 paper.
Good point. It's probably because there is a TV screen mindset and no one has really thought about changing it. ;)
If Compaq is still shipping with 800x600, they're not dead yet.
I've always wondered why screens aren't made taller, like a sheet of A4 paper.Good point. It's probably because there is a TV screen mindset and no one has really thought about changing it.
It doesn't seem to go over so well. Many flatscreen monitors these days allow rotation, and I remember working on a Xerox system in the eighties(!) that, if memory swerves me correctly, had a vertical-format screen.
Yet, most people stay with wide-format. May just be habit.
1024x768 ... ... ... 555,728
800x600 ... ... ... 141,119
1280x1024 ... ... ... 124,656
1280x800 ... ... ... 74,397
1152x864 ... ... ... 35,253
1440x900 ... ... ... 30,714
1680x1050 ... ... ... 18,460
1280x768 ... ... ... 14,837
1400x1050 ... ... ... 9,006
1600x1200 ... ... ... 7,309
1280x960 ... ... ... 7,029
1920x1200 ... ... ... 5,996
1280x854 ... ... ... 4,284
1344x840 ... ... ... 1,900
640x480 ... ... ... 1,616
1280x720 ... ... ... 1,612
1152x870 ... ... ... 1,206
1152x720 ... ... ... 1,156
1536x960 ... ... ... 1,140
English Version
1024x768 - 36.25%
1280x1024 - 25.31%
1280x800 - 8.07%
1680x1050 - 5.36%
1440x900 - 5.26%
800x600 - 4.06%
French Version
1024x768 - 33.70%
1280x1024 - 30.66%
1280x800 - 8.52%
1440x900 - 6.83%
1680x1050 - 5.14%
1152x864 - 3.90%
800x600 - 2.91%
German Version (800x600 didn't make top 10)
1280x1024 - 36.79%
1024x768 - 30.48%
1280x800 - 7.29%
1440x900 - 4.48%
1680x1050 - 4.21%
1152x864 - 3.84%
1920x1200 - 3.00%
(HINT: 1024 X 768)
That ain't very big.
Oh, and these are screen sizes; not browser window sizes.
Just keep that in mind as you design.
with too much going on in them are distracting, unnattractive and difficult to follow
Also, the scale of an 800x600 screen is pretty close to A4/Letter size paper
BeeDeeDoubleU, screens being too big is different from screens being too busy. If you find it distracting or unattractive, you need a new designer. 800x600 ratio is 1.33, same as 1024x768 and 1600x1200. 1280 is actually slightly more square.
Even on 1280 x 1024, the lines on this forum are too wide to read
Hester this is where my font size tweak comes in. Assuming this site was built for 1024, and I have to say it fits nicely and readable on my 1024's, the font size would be increased by 25% to match the resolution change, so text would appear as readable in 1280 as 1024.
Any no, the text wouldn't appear huge and childish, as the resolution would be higher, the text would be visibly the same size.
I'd avoid fluid layouts because the screen width could be anything. What if a 3000px wide monitor comes out?
I believe someone else raised the point of widescreens which are the proverbial spanner in the works for fluid layouts. I would suggest setting the width based on an aspect of the height, so e.g. 600 height *1.333 aspect = 800 width.
A widescreen monitor for example would be 1440x900, so 900 height * 1.333 aspect = 1197 width. Centre that and problem solved. You'd then need to design around that aspect ratio, rather than any particular resolution.
I think anyone would agree that an 800px wide layout on a 1440 widescreen (which is one of the smaller ones) would look a bit lost.
If I want to upgrade my laptop beyond 800 x 600, it will cost me hundreds of pounds. That's no lie.
How old is your laptop? I have one like that used as a door wedge! :D
Lots of people will have to pay to increase their screen size, by buying a new monitor. Liars? I don't think so. Their PCs may not even have graphics cards suitable for high-resolutions, so they will need to buy a whole new PC as well.
Does anybody reading this thread, know anyone or even anyone who knows anyone, have a PC that *without* spending money on can't display 1024x768? Except Hester who has 15 year old machines.
which came with a default of 800x600
Marcia, no offence, shop around, and don't buy from them again. They found it in the skip out back. If it is truly brand new, then check the video drivers. That is the most likely explanation it won't do >800x600.
Yet, most people stay with wide-format. May just be habit
Cmarshall, I misunderstood you, when you mentioned 800x600 previously I thought you meant screen res, not content res.
My TFT's have a rotation on them, whenever I used it (for larger vertical width when I'm coding), the display never seemed clear. I think mine certainly use some sort of compatibility mode or something.
1024x768, I completely agree, I use that as my base but try to make it scalable enought that the site is still functional at 8x6, if not always looking as good.
mikejaquez & gndv, I think we've seen enough stats listings here. We get the idea.
I think the feeling in this thread generally is that most people design for a 1024 width screen, 800-900 width content. Except BeeDeeDoubleU who seems unconvincably set against the idea.
In that case, maybe the majority could say in answer to the original question that yes, the days of 800x600 are ending.
Although I'm sure now I've said that, at least 500 people are going to argue with me.
We don't see that any more. I wonder if that is because screen sizes have jumped and people have gotten used to the larger screens?
However, I've gotten used to it. I've also gotten used to paying taxes and taking flu shots.
I like the content enough that I can forgive the relative inconvenience of the format.
You'll notice that I don't exactly force my columns, but I use pretty sparse paragraphs and extra lines.
Some of these posts, though, I don't even bother to read, because they are too large and chaotic.
I used to participate in a blog that had a user-selectable choice of two resolutions: 550 pixels or 700 pixels. The difference was negligible.
However, it was a very usable blog.
I was just browsing a site for a company that makes very expensive computer bags. It was formatted to fit within 800X600 (Browser Window), and was very usable indeed. They'll be getting my money (way too much of it) soon.
Many MANY people still uses 800px wide browser windows and has something like msn, rss readers, bookmarks etc on the side. In fact, since many sites are designed for 800px I guess users are more comfortable with resizing the browser window down by default to not loose valuable space they payed for.
There are a ton of CSS solutions for this. You can use elastic layouts using .em, so the user can control the page size by increasing/decreasing the font size. The problem here is that many users actually dont know how to do this (believe me), and the designer might want to "design" a wide layout, f.ex 4 columns. Then the text would become unreadable at 800px.
You can put a swith-layout-link on the page like "wide" or "narrow" layout (using javascript/css or even server-side scripting). You can use max-width in ie7 now, wich makes it a lot easier to do fluid width layouts. You can use javascript to detect, but it sounds oldschool.
I prefer a combination of elastic layout using .ems, but keeping a fluid body width using min-width and max-width to limit the size, so the typography doesnt get completely ruined. But that's just me.
He pointed me to this link [webmasterworld.com], and it allows me to change the res to fit my needs.
I'm compromising to a slightly wider than I'd like format because of the code dumps, but it is much narrower than the full width (I have a big screen on this laptop).
Thanks for the tip. It's not the first time I've missed a fairly basic feature of the forum prefs.
I don't even bother to read, because they are too large and chaotic
Sorry. Had a lot to say.
BeeDeeDoubleU, screens being too big is different from screens being too busy. If you find it distracting or unattractive, you need a new designer.
No.
The people who design sites this way need a new designer.
I don't even bother to read, because they are too large and chaoticSorry. Had a lot to say.
Nothing for which to apologize. I actually did read it all, because it was interesting, but it wasn't an easy read.
We can say a lot, but, if we format it well, it can be easier to digest.
Anyone who has followed my Newton the n00b Monologue [webmasterworld.com] on the XML Forum [webmasterworld.com] knows that I ain't a stranger to posting mondo big code samples and talkin' real long, like.
I will say that I am only aware of one person that has actually read said monologue, but LOTS of people have read my brief blurbs on this thread.
Although their pages are wider that 800px, it looks like they put some care into making sure visitors with 800x600 monitors can still use the sites effectively. No articles or photos are wider than 800 x 600.
Also, users are visually cued that there is additional content the right edge of their screen -- small slices of images appear at the right margin, for instance, and text is cut in the middle of words.
IMHO, I think they've got the right idea.
I'm going for a fluid layout, based on body.clientWidth AND clientHeight, to hopefully allow for both sidebars, and widescreens, and try out my varying font size method, and hopefully maintaining an aspect ratio of around 1.33. My god I'm going to need some luck and plenty of foo.
Hopefully you guys can let me know what it looks like 'cos I'm poor and can only manage 1280.
cmarshall's points about sidebars and toolbars, IE makes it very easy to have your favourites on a sidebar, and I know my folks use it. IE's wasted space (assuming bottom taskbar, default toolbars, no malware and for your sake a side bar, is top 94, bottom 55, left 273, right 2, leaving a dissapointing client area of 750x623. Oddly that adds up to 1025x772, but close enough.
I think this would be a good opportunity for you guys to do the same, we'll see which methods work best and we can all learn from the experience?
