Screen Resolution size when developing a site

RyanLanane · 02-22-2005

1280 X 1024
1024 X 768
Don't even tell me 800 X 600

I am guessing you optimize it for 1024 X 768 resolution sizes. Which is as simple as doing what I have shown below...

(center) ( table width = 1024 ) (/center)
(TR)
(TD)

Material goes here

(/TD)
(/TR)
(/TABLE)

This leaved me with one question, I am at 1280 X 1024, after a brief learning curve I am used to it and I find alot of pages done as shown above and I also see some that seem to take up my whole screen... These same sites also pretty much took up my whole screen at 1024 X 768 so there isn't any difference.

Is there actually a way to optimize it for both at the same time, or do you pick one of the two and go with it... Do you feel like you are leaving 'empty' ad space by optimizing for say 1024 X 768 ?

mojobill · 02-22-2005

I always lay my sites out for the lowest common denominator.... 800x600....

Still a majority of surfer's using that.... most have 15 inch screens, cuz thats what came with their 'package'... ;-)

Newton · 02-22-2005

There are still a lot of surfers with 800x600, but with the reality tours I typically design for about 750 width and as long as requires. The bacground image can always be made to blend into this seemlessly.

Take a look at this it might help with sizing.

http://www.wpdfd.com/browsergrid.htm

RyanLanane · 02-22-2005

YEEESH!!! And I thought I was slow with updating to new browsers, monitors, etc.. LOL !!!

I did just read the fine print and that was as of June 2001. I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768).

I took a look around and found this, for this month

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/February/res.php

and this for January,

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php

Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024).

Very interesting that people even still have 800 X 600, I never would of thought 1/3rd of surfers used that resolution. Surfing the web has to be a bitch for them and I would venture a guess they are using dial-up as well

Newton · 02-22-2005

Although it is 2001 it still gives you the relative safe areas to work within, that was more the object of the link, I should have explained that. Apologies

I agree that the stats show a lot more people use 1024 now, and it would make it easier if it were just 1024, and to discount the 800x600 completely. You could be losing a lot of potential sales; I personally use 1280 resolution for surfing, but for those with 800x600, they have to scroll sideways if you design solely for 1024.

There are the odd corporate clients I have that still insist on 640x480, even after being informed of resolutions, as they have legacy clients who complain at 800x600.

RyanLanane · 02-22-2005

Are there actually still monitors out there that WORK that can "only" handle 800 X 600, or are they just to stubborn to change the resolution in the display panel ? lol ..

I remember being at 800 X 600 only years ago and had to get used to a higher resolution as alot of the sites made me scroll, I finally kicked over even though it took a bit of time to get used to. I just don't see how people could stand to surf at 800 X 600, it's all the 65 + ers

TheEnforcer · 02-22-2005

800x600 always. I think I've had my screen set to a different resolution once or twice over the years LOL

TheEnforcer · 02-22-2005

BTW- I am NOT 65 years old!! Got 30 more years before that happens!! :P

DrGuile · 02-22-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanLanane@Feb 22 2005, 01:04 PM
Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024).

Meaning you will willingly give a bad experience to 30% of your surfers.

Not a great idea IMHO

DrGuile · 02-22-2005

But the "TheCounter" stats seem a bit weird, my own stats show ~15% mozilla (firefox) there's show 1%

SykkBoy · 02-22-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanLanane@Feb 22 2005, 01:04 PM
YEEESH!!! And I thought I was slow with updating to new browsers, monitors, etc.. LOL !!!

I did just read the fine print and that was as of June 2001. I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768).

I took a look around and found this, for this month

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/February/res.php

and this for January,

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php

Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024).

Very interesting that people even still have 800 X 600, I never would of thought 1/3rd of surfers used that resolution. Surfing the web has to be a bitch for them and I would venture a guess they are using dial-up as well

then by all means, put in some javascript to determine screen resolution and anything less than 1024x768 can be redirected to me...I'll take that 33% you don't want...

also, think about hoe many of your surfers are AOLers? did you know the average AOL browser only opens to about 2/3rds of screen size? it doesn't open to full size by default...

depending on what I'm designing, I've still been designing my tables with a width of 640

back when I was still doing webdesign, I did some work for a client and he called me totally pissed off that the site was broken..I couldn't figure out what was wrong...
well, he was accessing on AOL, had his screen resolution to 640x480 and my tiled image was a jpg (AOL compresses jpg's and makes them look like shit). He also had a 21 inch monitor. When I saw the site on his computer, I wanted to crawl into a hole...I lost a $20K contract because I failed to take into consideration lowest common denominator...

Most computers now come with 800x600 default and a lot of newbie surfers keep everything on default as much as possible...stop thinking like a webmaster and start thinking like a surfer...not all of them are online as often as we are (I know I've forgotten this numerous times myself)

but, just they are still surfing on default, it doesn't mean they don't have money to spend ;-)

(I have gradually started widnening my tables though)

sdsimon · 02-22-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanLanane@Feb 22 2005, 10:04 AM
YEEESH!!! And I thought I was slow with updating to new browsers, monitors, etc.. LOL !!!

I did just read the fine print and that was as of June 2001. I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768).

I took a look around and found this, for this month

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/February/res.php

and this for January,

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php

Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024).

Very interesting that people even still have 800 X 600, I never would of thought 1/3rd of surfers used that resolution. Surfing the web has to be a bitch for them and I would venture a guess they are using dial-up as well

Hi RyanLanane

You have a very interesting approach to making money. I am sure I will learn something from you. You think out of the box. This is a good thing.

Now…… the bottom line of this particular issue is …… the only reason to design a site with a screen resolution of 800 x 600 is if you want to make the maximum amount of revenue from your site.

If you are not restricted to basing your decisions on revenue streams, then design your site for whatever size makes you happy.

Hey sykkboy

How’ve you been my friend. I think of you often.

>>>>>Winners “WIN” because “NEVER GIVE UP!”<<<<

Hell Puppy · 02-22-2005

800x600 here as well. Remember, not everyone surfs with their windows maximized. Or so I'm told.

venturi · 02-22-2005

Just because a given surfer's screen resolution is bigger than 800x600 doesn't mean they browse in full screen mode, or with their browser maximized. I, for example, certainly don't and haven't since I graduated from Windows 3.1.

I build 99% of the sites I build for clean viewing on 800x600 and also make sure that they keep the same clarity at larger resolutions. 3 years from now that may change as larger monitors with higher resolutions become "standard", but for now I'm keeping potential horizontal scroll out of the equation.

cj · 02-23-2005

Ryan, I've noticed from your posts that you are very reluctant to actually learn anything other than what you already know ... you asked a question, and when you were given a response you came back with reasons why that answer was wrong.

>>I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768).

yes, i'm sure 800x600 surfers are used to not being able to view 200 pixels of a site, usually the bit that has the navigation or join button on it. I'm sure they are so used to it, they know exactly where to find the X.

If you design a site at 750 pixels wide, a 1024 surfer will see some extra space on either side, that's it - if you design it at 1024, even a 1024 surfer will have to scroll sideways because there's a scroll bar and browser borders to consider as well.

You can't blame your customers for using the equipment they are sold in the way its sold to them.

pushpills · 02-23-2005

800 x 600

kath · 02-23-2005

Same goes for webmasters - especially webmasters. Never assume that because your stats are showing that 85% of your traffic is using 1024x768 or higher that they are all using it full screen - cuz they're NOT. I've been getting crap from "small screeners" over a new design for one of our sites for the sideways scroll. I didn't realize so many people small screened it - even with the double monitor set ups, etc... So we're working on it.... *sigh*

Lesson learned - I still hate the 800x600 design look (actually less, 760 max is what I've been told) for the larger screen settings - and the expandable stuff never looks right IMHO - but you gotta do what you gotta do. lol

I imagine that if so many webmasters are wanting the 800x600 set, many many more surfers would be wanting it as well because of default settings, etc. and other reasons discussed here already.

<_<

RyanLanane · 02-23-2005

Point taken - Apparently 800 X 600 is the target to go for.

Designing there I cover 100 % which is betetr than 66% of course.

I just hate thinking about all that lost space I could of used for banners, side bars... google Ad Words, etc ... Guess I will just have to get used to it though.

Thanks everyone, looks like it was a good conversation and everyone appears to be sticking to 800 X 600. Meaning I obviously should as well

Ryan

Dravyk · 02-23-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanLanane@Feb 22 2005, 01:04 PM
Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024).

Very interesting that people even still have 800 X 600, I never would of thought 1/3rd of surfers used that resolution. Surfing the web has to be a bitch for them and I would venture a guess they are using dial-up as well

I still code surfer sites at 800x600. (Why lose a third of my traffic???)

B2B sites, I know Joe and Jane webmaster have better and newer gear, so I go 1024 on those.

$tanDaMan · 02-23-2005

Our webmaster sites are now 1024 x 768, however surfer stats still remain 800x600 it is about 30-40% of the traffic to the day..

Vick · 02-23-2005

Obviously you can force the users browser to open full screen

I do 1024x768 but then my design skills suck

Spw Guru · 02-23-2005

Wow these numbers are disturbing. I had this very conversation here the other day. I personally run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch laptop display. and 1600x1200 on my 19 inch desktop monitor. I have not run 800x600 on a machine since before windows 95. To see so many still using it truly sad as they are missing out on so much.

Without trying to sound retarded why do you all design based on a specific size? We keep our graphics und 800x600 but design our pages on percentages. Using extra side images and such so no matter what size resolution it always looks full.

02-22-2005	#1
RyanLanane Going Back to My Roots Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,123	1280 X 1024 1024 X 768 Don't even tell me 800 X 600 I am guessing you optimize it for 1024 X 768 resolution sizes. Which is as simple as doing what I have shown below... (center) ( table width = 1024 ) (/center) (TR) (TD) Material goes here (/TD) (/TR) (/TABLE) This leaved me with one question, I am at 1280 X 1024, after a brief learning curve I am used to it and I find alot of pages done as shown above and I also see some that seem to take up my whole screen... These same sites also pretty much took up my whole screen at 1024 X 768 so there isn't any difference. Is there actually a way to optimize it for both at the same time, or do you pick one of the two and go with it... Do you feel like you are leaving 'empty' ad space by optimizing for say 1024 X 768 ? __________________ ICQ # 253483920 E-mail : ryan1978@insightbb.com

02-22-2005	#3
Newton It's always business, never personal! The POWER of radio Oprano Radio Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: On a golf course Posts: 4,916	There are still a lot of surfers with 800x600, but with the reality tours I typically design for about 750 width and as long as requires. The bacground image can always be made to blend into this seemlessly. Take a look at this it might help with sizing. http://www.wpdfd.com/browsergrid.htm __________________ Poser Bush in a mix-up over his hi-tech gizmo - ICLOD

02-22-2005	#4
RyanLanane Going Back to My Roots Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,123	YEEESH!!! And I thought I was slow with updating to new browsers, monitors, etc.. LOL !!! I did just read the fine print and that was as of June 2001. I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768). I took a look around and found this, for this month http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/February/res.php and this for January, http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php Shows me twice as many people using 1024 X 768 - I think I will keep it optimized for them as that covers 2/3rds of the surfers (between 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024). Very interesting that people even still have 800 X 600, I never would of thought 1/3rd of surfers used that resolution. Surfing the web has to be a bitch for them and I would venture a guess they are using dial-up as well __________________ ICQ # 253483920 E-mail : ryan1978@insightbb.com

02-22-2005	#5
Newton It's always business, never personal! The POWER of radio Oprano Radio Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: On a golf course Posts: 4,916	Although it is 2001 it still gives you the relative safe areas to work within, that was more the object of the link, I should have explained that. Apologies I agree that the stats show a lot more people use 1024 now, and it would make it easier if it were just 1024, and to discount the 800x600 completely. You could be losing a lot of potential sales; I personally use 1280 resolution for surfing, but for those with 800x600, they have to scroll sideways if you design solely for 1024. There are the odd corporate clients I have that still insist on 640x480, even after being informed of resolutions, as they have legacy clients who complain at 800x600. __________________ Poser Bush in a mix-up over his hi-tech gizmo - ICLOD

02-22-2005	#6
RyanLanane Going Back to My Roots Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,123	Are there actually still monitors out there that WORK that can "only" handle 800 X 600, or are they just to stubborn to change the resolution in the display panel ? lol .. I remember being at 800 X 600 only years ago and had to get used to a higher resolution as alot of the sites made me scroll, I finally kicked over even though it took a bit of time to get used to. I just don't see how people could stand to surf at 800 X 600, it's all the 65 + ers __________________ ICQ # 253483920 E-mail : ryan1978@insightbb.com

02-22-2005	#2
mojobill Thinks Negative Rep Points on GFY Matters Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Michgan Posts: 686	I always lay my sites out for the lowest common denominator.... 800x600.... Still a majority of surfer's using that.... most have 15 inch screens, cuz thats what came with their 'package'... ;-)

02-22-2005	#7
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	800x600 always. I think I've had my screen set to a different resolution once or twice over the years LOL

02-22-2005	#10
DrGuile french with welsh tendancies Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,007	But the "TheCounter" stats seem a bit weird, my own stats show ~15% mozilla (firefox) there's show 1% __________________ LiveBucks / Privatefeeds - Giving you money since 1999 Up to 40% Commission! 25% Webmaster Referal

02-22-2005	#13
Hell Puppy Fat Fucking Nobody Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 6,523	800x600 here as well. Remember, not everyone surfs with their windows maximized. Or so I'm told.

02-22-2005	#14
venturi Members Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 138	Just because a given surfer's screen resolution is bigger than 800x600 doesn't mean they browse in full screen mode, or with their browser maximized. I, for example, certainly don't and haven't since I graduated from Windows 3.1. I build 99% of the sites I build for clean viewing on 800x600 and also make sure that they keep the same clarity at larger resolutions. 3 years from now that may change as larger monitors with higher resolutions become "standard", but for now I'm keeping potential horizontal scroll out of the equation. __________________ Step 1: Join NSCash and grab your link codes. Step 2: ??? Step 3: HUGE PROFITS!!! Programmer Extrordinaire

02-23-2005	#15
cj Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Down Under Posts: 5,202	Ryan, I've noticed from your posts that you are very reluctant to actually learn anything other than what you already know ... you asked a question, and when you were given a response you came back with reasons why that answer was wrong. >>I would assume it has got to be at least something the 800 X 600 users are at least used to by now (scrolling over due to design being optimized for 1028 X 768). yes, i'm sure 800x600 surfers are used to not being able to view 200 pixels of a site, usually the bit that has the navigation or join button on it. I'm sure they are so used to it, they know exactly where to find the X. If you design a site at 750 pixels wide, a 1024 surfer will see some extra space on either side, that's it - if you design it at 1024, even a 1024 surfer will have to scroll sideways because there's a scroll bar and browser borders to consider as well. You can't blame your customers for using the equipment they are sold in the way its sold to them.

02-23-2005	#16
pushpills ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The global leader in pay-per-view AEBN Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 3,460	800 x 600 __________________ ...Almighty Content - Free feeds for your members area!... The internet is a great way to get on the net. -Bob Dole ...Remote Thumbs - Make your TGP work for you!...

02-23-2005	#17
kath Members Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California, USA Posts: 1,340	Same goes for webmasters - especially webmasters. Never assume that because your stats are showing that 85% of your traffic is using 1024x768 or higher that they are all using it full screen - cuz they're NOT. I've been getting crap from "small screeners" over a new design for one of our sites for the sideways scroll. I didn't realize so many people small screened it - even with the double monitor set ups, etc... So we're working on it.... sigh Lesson learned - I still hate the 800x600 design look (actually less, 760 max is what I've been told) for the larger screen settings - and the expandable stuff never looks right IMHO - but you gotta do what you gotta do. lol I imagine that if so many webmasters are wanting the 800x600 set, many many more surfers would be wanting it as well because of default settings, etc. and other reasons discussed here already. <_<

02-23-2005	#20
$tanDaMan Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 173	Our webmaster sites are now 1024 x 768, however surfer stats still remain 800x600 it is about 30-40% of the traffic to the day.. __________________

02-23-2005	#21
Vick Celebrating Company's Success with A Beer From Mini Bar Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Little South of Sanity Posts: 6,551	Obviously you can force the users browser to open full screen I do 1024x768 but then my design skills suck __________________ Pssst Click the Button Above I once wanted to be a Gynecologist But I couldn't find an opening

02-23-2005	#22
Spw Guru Members Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Mi Posts: 39	Wow these numbers are disturbing. I had this very conversation here the other day. I personally run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch laptop display. and 1600x1200 on my 19 inch desktop monitor. I have not run 800x600 on a machine since before windows 95. To see so many still using it truly sad as they are missing out on so much. Without trying to sound retarded why do you all design based on a specific size? We keep our graphics und 800x600 but design our pages on percentages. Using extra side images and such so no matter what size resolution it always looks full.