Forum Moderators: phranque
I was wondering if this still held true? The reason being is I don't want to make a liquid page this time round, as it's for my DVD business, and I want something that's going to look a little different.
I was hoping I could get away with 1024 x 768 resolution?
Baring in mind this is for a UK clientele.
Thank you in advance for your input.
Those people who are still on 800px will be well used to having to scroll horizontally. There are so many sites being developed for higher resolutions nowadays it must happen to them all the time.
If you feel resolution if very very important for your DVD business i guess make separate CSS for each , give each of user good experience for great sales.
I checked this for an ecommerce site recently. Some slightly generalised numbers:
Visitors at 800x600 constituted 5% of all visitors. Surprisingly, they converted 0.5% higher than visitors at other resolutions.
So, any change to not support 800x600 would need at least a 5% increase in sales to break even. You could argue that the 800x600 would still buy stuff, but to be honest, I think this is doubtful since horizontal scrolling can border on the unusable for the mass market.
If I told most people I could increase sales by 5% with 200px, I doubt they'd even believe me. Your mileage, of course, varies!
You cannot make assumptions about browser window size based on screen size.
As has been pointed out here recently, users with larger screens are tending now to browse with somewhat SMALLER browser windows - because now they have the screen real estate to usefully keep more than one application on the screen.
Of course, they can expand them if needed.
I would try to design flexible pages that will work well in a range of 800x600 to, say, 1280x1024.
And, hey, I just made a goof anyway. Where can you buy a 4:3 screen any more?
Of course, there's no guarantee, either, that users with 16:9 displays will browse with a 16:9 browser window, either.
Flexible, flexible, flexible!
HTML was designed to flow, not get boxed-in! Not sure why so many designers want to box it in. It's NOT a magazine page!
You could argue that the 800x600 would still buy stuff, but to be honest, I think this is doubtful since horizontal scrolling can border on the unusable for the mass market.
I agree but we are not talking about the mass market. We are talking about the nominal 5% who still use 800px wide browsers. With the number of websites designed for higher resolutions that are now out there it is clear that these 800px people do not see it as being unusable. They obviously find it acceptable. They have to!
Your pages should be flexible.And, hey, I just made a goof anyway. Where can you buy a 4:3 screen any more?
I agree with this too but there has to be limits and I would suggest that the lower limit is now 1024. Low res screens are now part of computing history. Isn't it a bit like having to design for Windows 3.1 because there may still be someone out there using it? I mean by designing for 800px you are affecting the 95% of people who don't use it.
I think that people who use obsolete hardware and software are prepared to take the hit.
HTML was designed to flow, not get boxed-in! Not sure why so many designers want to box it in. It's NOT a magazine page!
It has to do with creating an attractive site for the visitors. It is very difficult to make a truly stunning webpage with a liquid layout (see CSSZengarden). No matter how we as developers look at our pages, the fact is that visitors do look at them more like magazine pages, and very few of them will enjoy sites that look like (for instance) useit.com.
it is clear that these 800px people do not see it as being unusable. They obviously find it acceptable. They have to!
IMO less usability at 800x600 = less sales.
Look at your audience and decide whether this affects your site, and whether any effect matters to you. You can easily collect a few stats to help you make an informed decision.
