Screen size specific Web Design?

[perpetuum-mobile]

I was wondering why at least 50% of the web designers (even on this forum) are still making webpages for 800x600 screen resolution? I have not seen in years anyone using this low resolution setting. There is a lot of wasted screen space at 1280x1024 or better.
Is there a specific reason for sticking with the 800x600?

[charlie]

One might be suprised to learn that a significant number of folk still surf at screen resolutions below 1024x768.

Statistics taken from W3Schools.com show that (currently) about 20% of your potential web audience may be browsing at 800x600 pixels.

The trend favors a decrease of this percentage as more people find "the light" (through all those extra pixels) but we're not quite ready to abandon our uninformed brethren just yet.

[drummin]

I've always made sites for 800 res.
Seems this is the resolution I see most often when browsing. When I get to a site that's built for a larger size I find it quite annoying as I hate right/left scrolling.
My thought is that it is better view a 800 site at 1024 then to view 1024 at 800. Many people viewing at larger res view at a smaller window size and might have other apps open on their screen.
This is why I still think 800 is best.

[charlie]

Another note is on the rise of variable width design... for example, webpronews.com.

Ideally, a well made site without static dimensions would resolve this issue entirely, but that's only in theory.

The debate rages on.

[dharrison]

Altho 1024 x 768 is becoming more and more the norm, there are still people out there who still view at 800 x 600.

And anyway a site that has been designed for 800 x 600 doesn't look too bad on a 1024 x 768 res anyway. its on these big cinema screen monitors that they start to look a little peculiar.

Anyway if you type this site is best viewed in 800 x 600 in the search at Google, you get 10.8 million results, so its not quite redundant yet.

[johngroup]

For our areas, about 25% still use 800 res. I prefer to design for 1024 re. but make it present well for those 800 browsers out there.

[imvain2]

When looking at the W3C resolution stats, you also have to realize that their stats are generated from their visits and their website caters to the more "techie" individual. The "techies" are more likely to adopt newer technologies earlier, so if your website caters to the less techie the number of 800x600 users may actually be much more.

When building websites, I like to build the overall layout based on 800x600. But set the layout to 100%, and tile the last few pixels of my "header". This way the site gives the illusion that it is made for every resolution.

[Overhaul]

I design for 1024 x 768 resolution but use a flexible layout that will degrade nicely on the 800 x 600 screen. Usually a flexible center column and fixed sidebars.

[grobar]

I agree that those browsing on 800/600 should get with the times.

BUT

My web stats across about 10 different sites of differing interests show that about 15% still browse in this res.

Probably the most intelligent response here so far was the sugestion to do up a fluid design that degrades.

[bj]

Fluid sites are best, due to the various size screens and windows we work with nowadays. Do be aware, though, that at widths wider than 1100 you need to be aware of line length and whether it's comfortable for your readers. On a three column design you're maybe okay a bit wider since your content column will be correspondingly narrower, but two column layouts that go over 1100 start to become hard to read. The eye has trouble tracking back to the beginning of the line.

Ideally you use min-width and max-width. And hack for IE so it recognizes those.

[Skywoolf]

It is much easier to design for wider screens but in Asia where I live there are still people using 640 x 480.

I design for 800 x 600 but make it fluid so those using a higher resolution are happy.

Personally I prefer sites to be about 1024 x 768. I use two screens with the main (Powerbook Pro) set to 1680 x 1050 and the second screen set to 1280 x 1024. Being a typical Mac user I constantly drag and drop to, from and between application windows and folders so it really bugs me when a site expands to fill the screen. I really need the space around the browser window.

[gowilkes]

I track the resolutions of my visitors, and I have found that closer to 75% of them are at 800x600. About 5% are at 640x480, which is unfortunate because they'll have to scroll on my site. Also, only about 5% of my visitors are NOT using Internet Explorer.

On my site, I built 2 homepages; one for < 1024x768, and one for 1024x768 or higher. Then, the rest of the site uses CSS to determine the width of tables and such. It works out well, but I would rarely do that for a client because it simply takes too long to design.

I suspect that it has to do with the demographic. A site that focuses on computer-savvy visitors can probably assume that most of their traffic will have a higher resolution, but my site is an internet portal, which tends to have an older audience that are not terribly savvy.

When you buy an off-the-rack computer, do they still come preset at 800x600? If so, this would explain my high percentage; people simply don't know how to change it.

[bj]

I'd say that "off the rack" computers haven't come set at 800 x 600 for a few years. Almost all notebook computers with a minimum of XP installed are 1024 x 768, and notebooks sales top desktop sales.

So it's probably that your surfers are the ones who don't upgrade at the drop of a hat. They're using older equipment. That could be a function of where they are geographically, or it could be that a lot of them are in a sector such as government, where equipment doesn't get upgraded as often as the private sector.

[sands]

Window size is what matters. But what do site stats show? Monitor resolution or window width? Unless you have stats of window sizes used, or have scripts that keep tabs on window sizes, monitor resolution stats could be misleading. Also can the scripts used to track window sizes be relied on? Some folks do not keep their browser windows fully open, especially those having higher resolutions or those using wide-screen laptops. Also fluid design would not be feasible for many sites with limited content. As BJ pointed out the most common off the rack systems seem to have 1024 x 768, which does not mean those using such systems open their browser windows fully. So I suppose that is the reason why most folks still design for 800 x 600. Also as pointed out earlier, a lot depends on the site content and who are the target audience. For a general audience, I feel 800 x 600 is still best.

[hs4u]

Checking the stats on my bingo location site I find the old ladies view it at 1024X768 a full 52% of them. This site is geared to the older folks that play bingo at the bingo halls. The second most view resolution is the 800X600 but with only 22%. The rest is scattered between larger and smaller.

Interesting that 91% use IE as the browser. This suggests they have newer computers and use the default settings that come with them. The last 3 I have purchased in the last year all come with IE and resolution set at 1024.

I design for the 800X600 crowd but try to keep it fluid for the most part.

Interesting thread.

[magic_majax]

I either don't specify element width at all or I use 3 column sites, where all the main content will fit within 800 pixels, so all the browser has to do is align once to read the main info. The left or right column will be purely decorative, the other column will be nav.

It's nice to make the most of screen real estate I think, but those sites that swell well over the edge of your screen are annoying.

[Rhys]

I personally use 800 x 600 because I have very little room and have to sit right next to my monitor. Also using 1024 x 768 makes the type too small to read well at the distance I have to sit from the monitor.

I design for 800 x 600 so people don't have to scroll. I expect as more and more people move up I will eventually redesign my sites for 1024 x 768.

[RegDCP]

I prefer fluid design.

I reset my stats program about 15 days ago and these are the current results:
1024x768 204 43.04%
1280x1024 116 24.47%
800x600 41 8.65%
1680x1050 31 6.54%
1152x864 26 5.49%
1920x1200 25 5.27%
Other 9 1.90%
1440x900 9 1.90%
1600x1200 8 1.69%
1400x1050 5 1.05%
Reg

[costaklaus]

Most Internet cafes in Costa Rica use 800x600 resolution and I think it´s in other central and south american countries the same. Therefore I made my page in 800x600 and 1024x768 to get a good output for a higher range of users. It is also good when the site work properly with Firefox browser.
Saludos
costaklaus - www.costaricaweb.de

[Purple13]

About a year ago, I visited a relative who was very keen to show me his new computer. He reeled off the spec and was especially proud of the new 17 inch monitor

Imagine the trouble I had concealing my surprise when he powered it up and the screen res was set to 640 x 480. The desktop icons were so big, it was almost garish.

When he went on the Internet, things got no better - horizontal scrolling on a 17"? I tried to educate him by showing him how to change the screen res but he said he preferred it "how it was before".

So I have to agree with the majority of this thread that 800 x 600 is still the norm and for some probably too big to handle??

Personally, I think sites that don't centre look worse on a larger screen res than those that centre.
I was always taught white space sells.

[sparkos]

Hi all,

This is a question many of my clients ask. 800 * 600 is definitely on the way out, but as everyone above has illustrated there is still a relatively high percentage of people who still view the web at this lower res ...

10% is roughly the firefox percentage which we definitely shouldn't ignore when testing cross browser compatibility. So, we've still got to consider this lower res when designing sites ... but hopefully not for too much longer.

If there's scope in the budget, I'd detect the screen resolution and direct to a version that suits. (You'd generally only really need two to choose from.)

I'm not keen on the let it squish/stretch idea unless there's a lot of content on the front page (magazine style) & then the website would really be designed to sit best on 1024 * 768.

I like to know how it's going to look (as much as possible) and so generally I set the width to a specific size. If you use images as backgrounds (photos or gradient textures) it's not always easy to get around a dynamic width ...

But, I agree some websites can look a bit daft on those screens with the huge resolution (over 1280 * 1024). Hopefully, the browser never goes full screen in those cases!

Good luck with it,
Mark (www.theinternexus.com)

[dtalbot]

You might also consider comprehension/readability and printer compatibility.

Fluid designs can make for very long lines of text. The longer the line of text, the hard it is to read and retain what is being said. With a fixed width and a design over 1024x768, again long lines of text start creeping into the picture. So with a 1024x768 and multiple columns (or 800x600), text length is short and the over all width doesn't go to far beyond what a regular audience can absorb easily.

Printing always seems to be an issue with my clients. Yes you can do separate code to control the printing but my general clientele doesn't want to pay for the extra time it takes. Still many people do print what they see on the web. While 1024x768 may not print completely, most of it will. Use the multi column layout and make sure that the main content prints out, and a compromise has been met between design and the users printing out web pages. Of course 800x600 prints great every time.