Should we accommodate 800x600?

[sintax321]

I know the stats and there are still a lot of ppl who still use this smaller setup but should we change a design to fit 800x600?

Don't you think ppl with a smaller set up will expect to vertical scroll a bit. I'm not talking about making them horizontal scroll but with a smaller monitor i dont' mind vertical scrolling.

Does thinking we have to fit 800x600 hold us back?

What about ppl on larger setups. Are we not just forcing them to look at a ton of empty filler space?

I'm asking this cause for the first time i'm building a site that wont' fit 800x600 verticaly and i like it.

[Digitalosophy]

depends who your visitors are going to be. if you think only people with high resolution are going to be viewing your site, then make it bigger. but if it's a site about public info or stuff where everyday people with everyday computers are going to be visiting, then you might think about designin at 800x600. however i do feel 800x600 viewers should be expected to scroll.

[teet]

i don't have any statistics on hand, but i used to work in a computer shop. i saw a lot of computers for schools, businesses, and just the average user...A LOT of people still use 640x480!

i think the goal of most designers should be to make a page that looks good on 800x600 and 1024x768 and is at least viewable on other resolutions.

-teet

[reverendflash]

I wish I could design for larger res, but I have to go with the shotgun approach of the largest audience avail...

JMO tho. it's 50/50 right now...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[claudio]

I agree with teet. I try to make something that looks good on 1024x768 and also in 800x600.
Even though I use 1280 x 1024.

[sintax321]

ya the stats to show it is pretty much 50/50 between the to resolutions. But dont' u think as long as we dont' make it more the 760 wide a 800x600 user will still vist and view the site. As a 800x600 resolution user they will be used to scrolling up and down. As long as they aren't horazontaly scrolling i think it still counts as viewable in 800x600.

Also dont' u think designing at a high resolution will help to swtich more ppl over to a larger res. Then again we will see a repeat when 1280x960 becomes more widely used and ppl are desinging to fit 1024x768. Or is 1024x768 the perfect size. Right now it kind of seems like the perfect size to design at.

[claudio]

Yea I get your point, sintax321. I dont know the stats too, but most people I know still use 800x600. I myself think 1024x768 is the best option for now. You can use 1024x768 in a simple 15 inch monitor (which i think most people have, or am I wrong?).
Just my opinion... :sigh:

[fluid_0ne]

i use 15" monitor with 1024x768
but most people use 17" monitors...

[Kitiara]

At Churchill, I'm made to design for 800 x 600. We work on the theory that if we do that, higher resolutions will be able to see it, and the lower res won't have to scroll. I'm not mad keen, considering the amount of information they expect me to fit into that size screen, but I can see the point.

Plus with the new kinds of monitor coming out, people can't afford to buy the 17" ones, so have to settle for smaller screen, therefore lower res...

[claudio]

Hopefully one day everyone will use 17'' monitors and 1280x1024
:P

[kirupa]

It largely depends on who your target audience will be. If your site will primarily be a design-oriented, cool site that will probably interest other techies, 1024x768 is a good resolution. If you would want the average individual to view it also, then 800x600 is a good choice :)

Cheers!
Kirupa :P

[abzoid]

The default screen resolution on any new Windows installation is 800x600. Most computer users never change that. Until the default resolution changes to a larger resolution the number of users viewing at 800x600 will remain high enough that, as designers, we'll have to continue to design sites to be viewed at 800x600.

It hasn't been all that long ago that I was still designing sites that were viewable in 640x480.

[Ranoka]

Win XP won't let my monitor go below 800x600. For my home page I think I'd design for about 1024x768, its not like i'd be losing customers for a company or anything. I might even tell people how to increase their resolution on my site.

I also noticed that the lowest colour depth I can go down to is 16 bit. Why are we encouraged to stick to web safe pallettes?

I think we should higher resolutions and teach people how to change the settings on their pc.

[sintax321]

Wow it is split so far.

Ya i have never worried about web safe colors ever. It automaticly fills in safe colors anyway so why bother.

Now someone mentioned 1280x960. Has any one tried to make a site at that size. You need a lot of content or a lot of filler graphics to use that much space. 800x600 seems like you are always jamming things. 1024x768 seems to be perfect. Big enough for your content but small enough you arent' jsut filling space.

Do you think we will ever get to a point where 1280x960 will be the standared?


I can see how you would say build for your target audiance but a 800x600 user really would be used to vertical scrolling.


I think we should higher resolutions and teach people how to change the settings on their pc.
This would bring a change around faster.

[reverendflash]

good luck on trying to educate the masses!

Oh the exhuberance of youth...

:trout:

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[replode]

my friends monitor is set at 800 x 600, but the size is only like 16-17 inches or something like that, and the forum shows up fine, its not distorted or smaller or anything like that.

when a person registers, the forum resolution could be edited in their control panel, much like the styles. just a thought.

[abzoid]

Originally posted by reverendflash
...Oh the exhuberance of youth... :trout: :nodding in agreement: :elderly:

[sintax321]

lol i know you old guys are used to the comfotable world of 800x600. :elderly: :P

A revolution is upon us ppl. We must rise up and cast off the shackles of the oppresive 800x600 resolution. LOL

[abzoid]

Ah grasshopper, be careful what you assume. :) My screen resolution is set to 1024x768, and I think Rev's is even higher. What you use yourself and what you design for are two unrelated issues.
<b>&lt;soapbox&gt;</b>
A well designed site will work well in all commonly used resolutions. While it may look it's best at 1024x768 or higher, if it still looks good and functions properly at 800x600 then you've done your job as a designer.
<b>&lt;/soapbox&gt;</b>

[UNFLUX]

all my sites and stats show 80%++ for 1024. I still make all my
sites to fit 800 no matter what tho.

[Mik3]

I think we should all design apon 1024x768

[reverendflash]

Originally posted by :mike:
I think we should all design apon 1024x768

can you elaborate mike from San Ramon?

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[Mik3]

just build stuff to fit 1024x768 and higher, peoplke with 800x600 might want to upgrade moniters and be more happy

[abzoid]

Originally posted by :mike:
...peoplke with 800x600 might want to upgrade moniters and be more happy I don't think you get how the dynamic of web traffic works. The designer has to follow what the public at large is doing, not vice versa. People aren't going to upgrade just to view a web site, many won't even change settings on the computer they already have. Your job as designer is to make the site as effective as possible for your client. Kissing off anyone using less than 1024x768 is doing your client a disservice.

After reading UNFLUX's post about his own site stats I checked a few online sources that compile browser stats. The percentage of users with 800x600 resolutions varied from 25% to 45% depending on who was collecting the data and from what sources. That's way too high a number to ignore. When it get down to under 10% then I may be less concerened about my design "degrading gracefully" when viewed at 800x600.

[reverendflash]

most people who are using 800x600 have no choice in the resolution of their monitors... think institution & governmental... quite a bit of the world still "gets online" at work only.

we can't force people to use a higher res...

I was just saying that a one line comment in the middle of a convo is better with a back up of that comment...

not everyone has the option to upgrade...

so rather than say we all design larger, because our tastes are for larger res monitors?

just trying to see where you're going...

;)

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[Mik3]

that's true... but I don't understand how the web will evolve if the hardware doesn't

[reverendflash]

Originally posted by :mike:
that's true... but I don't understand how the web will evolve if the hardware doesn't

it will mike, but it takes time. Most users don't upgrade their equip until it doesn't run a new piece of software or hardware efficiently...

truth.

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[abzoid]

The hardware will evolve as equipment fails and gets replaced or the new software package won't run well on the existing system.
It was only several years ago that I was having this same conversation in another online forum, only at that time it was 640x480 vs 800x600.

[saint cleve]

i dont know about all of you out there...but i am running at 2048 x 768...and i know not a whole lot of people are running dual monitor display... i hate it when people have their sites automatically maximized because it streaches the whole way across both of my monitors...also...the bigger the site...the longer it takes to load...usually
also...i think that in the future...most people will have a larger display, and would be upset if we made all of our sites to accomodate to the smaller ones today...
so i say, make em' big...if people want to see the whole site without scrolling...they should just go out and get a bigger monitor...at least 17inch...or change there settings or something..casue that is ridiculous to have 800 x 600...that is tiny...
so...websites should be made to suit the maker...i agree to sticking with a 800ish width..but if you need to make it longer...go for it...
let the people with small monitoys catch up with the world...

:block:

[claudio]

Originally posted by saint cleve
i dont know about all of you out there...but i am running at 2048 x 768...Geez, thats a wide screen! :P :P

[abzoid]

What we have here...

...is a failure to communicate.

from my earlier post
<soapbox>
A well designed site will work well in all commonly used resolutions. While it may look it's best at 1024x768 or higher, if it still looks good and functions properly at 800x600 then you've done your job as a designer.
</soapbox>
My point being, that you can design for 1024x768 without excluding viewers using 800x600. You just have to do a little extra work to make it so.

[Digitalosophy]

a thought from Digital

: If you are that worried about it design 2 sites. yes 2! use a reso detect and point the user to the proper page. one site for 640 to 800. and the other for 1024 to 1280. i actually did this once, and it really wasnt that much of a pain in the ***, however it was in html not flash

[reverendflash]

it all depends on who you are designing for. Yourself, or a client. If it is yourself, then no worries. If it is your client, you have 2 options. 1 is to follow what the client wants, 2 is to not. If you take option 2, then no worries, you don't have a client anymore, problem solved. If you take option 1, then you only have 2 concerns. 1a is that the client wants an 800 x 600 site, because he wants to hit absolutely everyone he can for the buck. 2a is that the client is okay with larger res sites. If option 2a, then no worries. If option 1a, then please refer to option 1 above.

;)

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[NeoDreamer]

Depends what kind of website you have. I think different audiences will have different resolutions. You just need to find some statistics before you make a site.

People that want to buy a website from a portfolio site might have low resolutions because they don't have the web design programs that mandate a high resolution.

A web site designed for computer nerds might need to be made in high resolution. And so on....

You know what sucks? I was planning on designing my new flash site for 800 by 600 people. My book said it should be no bigger than 760 by 450. But when I tested it, I had to scroll. Man!!! What are the correct dimensions?

[comicGeek]

We should always consider everybody when designing a web site. It IS the ethical way! Even if your target audience, for example are fellow designers with large screens and powerful machines. You can always make an alternate site that fits and resizes to what ever resolution. But in my case I try to make it half way. When I don't want the users scroll horizontally or vertically I use 710X460px area. I have tested this in a lot of monitors and resolutions. This area looks nice on a 1024x768 res and even better when at 800x600. I just have to find a font that would look as good on both resolutions. Look at my site (http://www.keldesigned.com) and try it on both resolutions to know what I mean. :trout:

[NeoDreamer]

I have a question. Do people who want to order a web even know what screen resolution is? They probably never changed their resolution in their whole lives, because screen resoltuion really only affects designers (maybe). So my point is, what's the purpose of everyone allowing different resolution versions for their portfolio websites?

[sintax321]

This gets back to the point of vertival scrolling. THis is an execpet practice of ppl with smaller res monitors. ppl accept vertical scrolling but hate to horizontal scroll. SO if a site is built at say 760x600 instead of 760x420 would that not stil lbe considerd 800x600 funtional? ALl the small res person ahs to do is a bit of vert scrolling which they are porbalby used to.

[comicGeek]

For me a width of 760px is good for both resolutions. If ever I want to increase the height, I'll make a design that will still be nice even when there is vertical scrolling (ie 2advanced.com style)!

Also people buying 17" monitors will have their resolutions set to 1024x768 because that is the default res for those monitors just like 800x600res is the default for 14" and 15" monitors! :)

[reverendflash]

defaults have nothing to do with the monitors... it has to do with your OS & vid card...

when you plug in a new monitor, you don't get a new res...

when you plug in a new vid card, you will get a default screen of 800x600...


monitors just display what the computer and vid card put out.

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[RelandR]

Ahhh, the deep vs wide discussion ...

Personally if you have to scroll, I agree that going too deep is far more acceptable than too wide.

but as a general note on 'who' is the audience ... most clients would want everybody to fit in whether they know or say so or not...ultimately.

Consider the one who takes your advice that the most people viewing the site are younger and more internet savvy and therefore should likely have the wider res.

After the fact, some of his friends and/or relatives look at it and say it sux because they have to scroll all over the place ... now he thinks you an idiot.

as abazoid and the good rev have said - design with the most people in mind

play elitist with your own stuff

JMO

[comicGeek]

No what I mean was that for a 17" monitor a 1024x768res is the default. Usually when you a by a system the screen res is set to the monitor default. :-\

[abzoid]

comicGeek, see my earlier post. 800x600 is the default resolution on ALL new installations of Windows.

Most systems are sold with several options for monitors, so there is no way that they can be preset for the larger because at the time the OS is installed they have no idea what the size of the monitor will be.

[sintax321]

CG they are right aobut the defautl thing. Regardless of your monitor size defautl the OS takes over on install and the defualt install res is 800x600.

[comicGeek]

Okay. But here when we buy pc we always get a window OS package with complete with the settings already.