Goodbye 800×600?
As I was redesigning my own site I debated what resolution to use. More and more sites are optimized for screens at 1024×768, and the WC3 reports 80% of users have monitors that big or bigger. Even my own stats suggest users on my site with 800×600 at only 4%. But it’s still 4%, which is more then Opera, Safari, and IE5 combined and I still make sure my sites work within that small percentage of users, so why not these?
One solution is liquid layouts, having the site stretch to fill the space available to it, and conversely shrink to fit smaller windows. This is, of course, completely valid and not uncommon, but I dislike it. For one it means designs always have to account for the largest and smallest possible situations. So having any sort of photo or illustration fill the header or any other part of the site means you are going to run into troubles. Additionally, liquid layouts mean line length increases beyond what might be optimal for reading. So for those reasons I’m staying with fixed width layouts.
There is also a rising trend in users to not have their browsers maximized to full screen, especially in those with wide screen and larger monitors. This is somewhat comforting, but it’s not something there is a lot of stats behind, and what someone needs to do is build in window resolution detectors into their stats counter packages (ahem.. Google).
In the end you have about 960 pixels of space to work with at a 1024 resolution, minus margins and toolbars, ect. That’s a lot of space if you’ve been confined too 700 pixel layouts, offering a lot of new possibilities for you to explore in content arrangements and design principals.
After all was said and done, I designed my new site at a 960 pixel width, because of the grid possibilities within that number.
So what width do you design for?
Andy Ebon | March 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm #
I maintain websites and three blogs. In tracking the statistics on my users of some 30 sites, I, too, find that only about 4% are viewing at 800 x 600 pixels.
Until recently, I’ve been moving to liquid layouts. Of late, I’m heading toward a fixed-width (950 pixels), as you have, to maintain a consistent layout for all users.
I still seem to think it through on each project, but currently, I seem to come to the same ‘fixed-width’ conclusion.
Andy
Rina | March 30th, 2008 at 12:46 am #
Yes, even I agree that 800*600 resolution is not preferred any more.
I have been doing lot of websites, and even I have started designing for 1024 screen resolution which means 950 pixels and fixed-width layouts!
-rina
Ramona Iftode | March 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am #
I don’t design liquid layouts since I like to make them pretty graphical and this is a pain when having to stretch them. I also create most of my new designs on 950-980 pixels wide and not for the 800×600 res. anymore.
James Lutz | March 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am #
I just had this very same conversation a few days ago on a forum I belong to. We even took a poll on all of our members and overwhelmingly our visitors were using 1024×768 and a few were higher than that. I think maybe we had 2 users still using 800×600. Almost everything I do is catered towards 1024 but I do still check across various resolutions and browsers.
Kevin | March 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am #
With the rise in popularity of umpcs and browsing using mobile phones and other devices we may see an increase in browsing from lower resolutions. Though I would personally still design my blog with home users in mind and encourage mobile users to read the site via RSS
John Leschinski (Post Author) | March 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Mobile devices should have either a separate style sheet, or a separate layout all together.
Allyn Paul | March 30th, 2008 at 10:42 pm #
I think your site layout looks very clean and readable.
I generally use free templates that I trust are compatible for the masses.
AL
Bryce W | March 31st, 2008 at 12:21 am #
I still design for 800×600. Besides, the new ultra-portable laptops like the EeePC has breathed new life into the resolution since that is all they are capable of at this stage. I still think we should design for 800×600.
Scott Fillmer | March 31st, 2008 at 5:46 am #
I went for something in between so it would irritate everyone, around 1000x
I just purchased a new laptop last week and the screen resolution is a whopping 1920 x 1200 and I can’t wait to take a look at it. I don’t think I have actually looked at a screen 800×600 in years and years, so I think moving up is a great thing. How in the world can you see anything on an 800×600 resolution anymore anyway?
The mobile phone issue is different, but if you have an iphone it doesn’t seem to make a difference most of the time what the resolution is designed to be. I like the layout, thanks. Scott
background checks blog | March 31st, 2008 at 9:24 am #
I have been using the 1024×768 for quite some time. I love having the extra space, and generally my sites target the more tech savvy type which tend use larger monitors.
Internet Shopping | June 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm #
I use the images size as per my website needs and pages requirement, i never mind about size, but strictly follow the one rule for each and every images.
car-fan | August 31st, 2008 at 2:03 am #
As user (not programmer) I prefer liquid layouts with minimum width of about 800px. In home I have large display (30″) but my laptop has only 1024 so liquid layout is the most compatible in my opinion.