PDA

View Full Version : Do you still design for 800x600?



Chris
03-01-2008, 11:07 AM
I was wondering how many people still design for 800x600?

My literature site is used by a lot of schools and other academic places which do not always have the best hardware. It is setup for an 800x600 audience, and has been for years and years, however... consider this.

Sample size, 1.8 million unique visitors

Number of visitors with a resolution of 800x600 or less? 134,555 (7.37%)

I think, from here on out, all my new designs for any of my sites will be 1028 based.

KLB
03-01-2008, 11:27 AM
I still design for 800x600 on my environmental chemistry site. I'd like to shift to 1024x768, but like you, 7.39% of my users still use 800x600. I will probably wait until the number drops to 1%-2% before finally making the switch. I'd really like to switch within the next year or two.

On my new InternetSAR.org site I set it to a width that requires at least 1024x768. The reason is that anyone with a smaller screen resolution wouldn't have a system that could support the system requirements to effectively support and use Google Earth to search our imagery for missing aircraft.

agua
03-01-2008, 06:37 PM
Use max-width and min-width css declarations to cover all

But no - personally I don't bother with 800x600

Todd W
03-01-2008, 06:39 PM
I use 950px wide now, which is almost max for 1024x768.

I still wish I could go wider.. I guess with a 30" display everything down that size seems TINY.

Chris
03-01-2008, 08:35 PM
The thing is, if you limit yourself to 800px, you limit you design choices severely if you want to use leaderboards. 1028 gives you much more flexibility in ad-based layouts.

agua
03-01-2008, 08:51 PM
Also user experience

KLB
03-01-2008, 09:16 PM
The thing is, if you limit yourself to 800px, you limit you design choices severely if you want to use leaderboards. 1028 gives you much more flexibility in ad-based layouts.


Also user experience

Yes a wider layout would allow for more options, but I would argue that you are not improving the user experience of the 7.3%+ of users who would have to be horizontally scrolling.

In my case I wouldn't be providing a real improvement in user experience for my users by going to a wider layout. I would only be giving myself more options. I'm not going to hurt the experience of 7.3% of my users just to give myself more options.

FPU
03-01-2008, 09:37 PM
Not any more, if you do it make sure you have everything centered.

agua
03-01-2008, 10:31 PM
What I mean by "improving the user experience" is presenting the information in a more pleasing manner by making use of the extra space to increase legibility by layout.

If you use min-width and max-width in your css, you shouldn't be excluding any users

KLB
03-02-2008, 04:01 AM
If you use min-width and max-width in your css, you shouldn't be excluding any users
This isn't always a viable option in multi-column designs unless you use tables to define layout structure, which is not really proper.

pkerr1975
03-06-2008, 07:36 AM
I try an optimise my sites for 1074x768 but making sure they don't look completely broken in 800 x 600.

e.g. I might have a sidebar with additional content, that the 800x600 users can't see but they still get to view all the main content in a clean layout.

tommy_boy
03-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Looking at some of my numbers:
1024x768
89,645 45.61%
1280x800
37,144 18.90%
1280x1024
23,515 11.96%
1440x900
11,979 6.09%
800x600
10,405 5.29%
1152x864
7,219 3.67%
1680x1050
5,000 2.54%
1280x768
3,747 1.91%
1280x960
1,863 0.95%
1280x720
959 0.49%
I don't see what sense it makes... and it is way to limiting. I would think most users that have screen resolutions of 800x600 would be used to side scrolling.

Farmer77
03-10-2008, 10:45 PM
I don't design for 800x600 anymore. And people who use 800x600 these days probably know they will have to scroll through many sites anyway.

masonbarge
03-11-2008, 06:25 AM
Yes. I always make liquid pages that will resize gracefully anywhere from 600 to 1440px in width. It's not that hard.

Users with 800px screens are not the only issue. With superwide monitors, I like to be able to size the full page on a window 600px wide and have it looking good.

Dan Schulz
03-13-2008, 10:43 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Screen resolution (in regard to the pixel dimensions anyway) is meaningless. Just because someone's at 1024x768 or higher doesn't mean that their browser will be. I'm at 1024x768 myself and there are times when I'll have the browser width set to 800px or so just so I can have access to some of the other apps on my desktop (such as Trillian).

You just might find this to be useful (and it echos many of my thoughts on the matter as well). The Definitive FAQ to Screen Resolution (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=463591) [link: sitepoint.com]

Emancipator
03-15-2008, 08:36 AM
Looking at some of my numbers:
1024x768
89,645 45.61%
1280x800
37,144 18.90%
1280x1024
23,515 11.96%
1440x900
11,979 6.09%
800x600
10,405 5.29%
1152x864
7,219 3.67%
1680x1050
5,000 2.54%
1280x768
3,747 1.91%
1280x960
1,863 0.95%
1280x720
959 0.49%
I don't see what sense it makes... and it is way to limiting. I would think most users that have screen resolutions of 800x600 would be used to side scrolling.

i agree with you. I checked my own stats before making my decision. the biggest problem I had was the dimension is so restricting to what you can do. I try to aim for 900 - 980 and no more so even f you are 800 you can still get the IMPORTANT content.