Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

What about the 800 x 600 resolution people?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9023 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 07:32 AM

I have a client who is going through hoops to keep the 800 x 600 resolution people happy. Some of his potential clients are still at that level, although when they buy his systems they upgrade to a higher resolution. So I'm sure it's the right decision for him.

What about you? :?

#2 amjid

amjid

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:37 AM

Hi Barry,

Its funny.. I had this exact discussion with our web designer this morning who is currently redesigning the company home page.

I have always believed that you should design for an 800x600 screen because invariably there will be people using that resolution.

The designer, on the other hand, wants to design to a higher resolution stating that he can get 'more' on the page. I understand his arguments.

As a compromise, it has been suggested that while the page will be designed for 1024, all key information will be above the page fold so that if a user was using a 800 screen he would see all the key information without scrolling... time will tell if this is the 'right decision'.

The absolute key thing for me is there be no horizontal scrolling on the page. I think users may be willing to put up with some vertical scrolling (?).

How do others approach this?

Amjid

#3 3rdeye5

3rdeye5

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:53 AM

Lately I've seen a couple of sites developed for a browser width of 1024. As my screen has a width of 1024, and I have my Windows taskbar at the right side of my screen, that annoys me, as a horizontal scrollbar appears.

Personally, I find a page width of over 800 pixels or so unpleasant, and that's why I have my taskbar at the right, instead of at the bottom as usual. I like to have more vertical space for viewing webpages, and not so much horizontal space.
Also, with my taskbar at the right, the window titles in the buttons stay more readable as more programs are open.

Ewald

#4 cline

cline

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:59 AM

I was dealing with the designer for one of my clients recently and he insisted on designing to a 600 pixel width, and got huffy when I wanted to take it up to 800.

Although there are certainly lots of exceptions, I like fluid designs best. Let the user determine resolution.

#5 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:08 AM

Fluid. Most definitely.

Ruud

#6 Ruud

Ruud

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 4887 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:13 AM

I like to have more vertical space for viewing webpages, and not so much horizontal space.  
Also, with my taskbar at the right, the window titles in the buttons stay more readable as more programs are open.


Hoi Ewald!

Interesting... I'll give this some time to get used to and then see if I like it. Certainly the window titles with many open programs is handy... and I suddenly have more place form my quicklaunch icons as well. Hmmm, not bad, not bad at all.

Ruud

ps: know how to get the Start button more towards the bottom of the bar?

#7 3rdeye5

3rdeye5

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:27 AM

Hoi Ruud :D
I've also tried it at the left side of my screen, but I don't quite like that, as webpages usually have their navigation at the left as well. At the right it's conveniently out of the way.

[Added:]
I have no idea about how to move the Start button. I've just gotten used to it being in the top right corner.

Ewald

#8 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:46 AM

Last stats I saw there were still a very large percentage of people using 800x600, and I can't see it ever dissapearing, because many older people (and some younger ones) have trouble with 1024x768 anyway.

I think the slight majority now is 1024x768, but I'm confused that anyone would think its worth ignoring 800x600 now.

And with more and more small screen devices (PDA's and the like), you probably want to be taking account of that as well.

#9 Respree

Respree

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5901 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:52 AM

I'm also for fluid designs. I think it has the advantage of more real-estate on the larger resolutions, pushing text that would have otherwise been below the fold, above the fold. My 2 cents.

#10 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9023 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:57 AM

3rdeye5, that really is an intriguing idea to put the Task Bar at the right. Interestingly the thing that broke it for me was my HotBot deskbar. I use both this and the Google deskbar, both of which I find invaluable for certain small tasks. The Hotbot deskbar is not pretty when you put it in a vertical Task Bar. That's a shame. :D

#11 trevHCS

trevHCS

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 662 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 04:07 PM

The subject line makes it sound like we're some weird bunch of people on the fringes of computer society... :lol:

I can see the advantages of 1024 but how anyone can work at anything about 800 x 600 I'm really not sure - its not ideal for reading text for many hours a day or do people just having bigger monitors than 17" these days?

So, I would like to add my vote to the keep 800 x 600 campaign (and my eyesight) although admittidly I said something similar about Netscape 4 vs IE...ahem. :)

Trev

#12 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 06:31 PM

I'm also a fluid designer. Recent stats have 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 at about 40-45% each so you need to design for both.

My husband runs a computer support company and he's said he rarely if ever sees anyone on anthing above 800 x 600 which I found interesting. Makes me wonder if most people on higher resolutions are more tech orientated.

#13 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2084 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:44 PM

My screen is 1024x800 but with a search sidebar it drops dwn to 800px wide. Fluid is good in theory but if I do browse at a res higher than 800px wide I find the lines of text to long to read comfortably. Max-width still isn't supported widely :lol:

I wouldn't build a page that had a horizontal scroll at 800x600.

Tam

#14 Sharondippity

Sharondippity

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 09:27 PM

Can I ask what is it that you all need these extra toolbars for? Is it something you use all day long? I only surf at night, and occasionally during the day when I'm babysitting a long process. I want as much space open as possible.

#15 iKwak

iKwak

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 24 April 2004 - 03:15 AM

Many of the pc in the computers labs are in 800x600 and same goes for all the pc in one of the nearby library.

#16 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 24 April 2004 - 03:28 AM

I maintain about 30 sites for different clients. The server logs still show a minimum of 80% of viitors to those sites are using an 800 x 600 screen.

I'm using a monster PC at the moment with a 19" monitor, and I only up the screen resolution when I'm editing videos. For general use 800 x 600 is without any doubt the most comfortable for general use. I''m in my 50's, and the over 50's are the fastest growing sector of new users at the moment.

#17 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 24 April 2004 - 07:10 PM

I''m in my 50's, and the over 50's are the fastest growing sector of new users at the moment.

I think part of the decision comes from your audience. If your audience is young adults in their early 20's then a higher resolution may be in order. If the site is about pensioner's insurance a lower resolution would probably be best.

#18 The Alien

The Alien

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 24 April 2004 - 11:40 PM

Is there any other way but........ FLUID????????????

#19 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2084 posts

Posted 24 April 2004 - 11:54 PM

Toolbars.....

The search bar at the side (which takes my screen down to 800px) is a quick way of searching google and viewing results. I use google a far amount, researching things or solving code errors etc :lol: It also does bookmarks etc. though I tend to head for the top menu for those. Then at the bottom of the screen I have to standard windows toolbar with the open windows listed, I have six programs open at the moment and flick between. Up the top I have tabs for the different windows I have open to different sites, only 3 atm. Then of course there is the back/forward buttons and the address bar.

Altogether that knocks about 160px of the left, 120px of the top, scroll bar takes another 15px on the right and theres about 45px off at the bottom.

Tam

#20 Arnvid

Arnvid

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 159 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 06:40 PM

Always build for an 800x600 resolution even if I with a 19" monitor use a 1024 resolution. Come on, most of us always check pages in Netscape/Mozilla and Opera even if users of these browsers are FAR below a 40% number - LOL

Honestly, I will not leave that concept before the 800 resolution people are far below the magic 1%. Feel this is a matter of "user respect" more than per cent numbers alone.

In fact I always make sure that my left navigation bar and the main section is visible so even no 600 user have to make a horizontal scroll to read the middle section (even if 600 resolution users miss the right side table).

Still, I use the align="center" function on the main frame so when having a 1024-plus resolution it should not be a page with a set-up falling on one of side of the monitor.

Important question Barry!

#21 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 26 April 2004 - 09:28 PM

I'm an 800x600 browser user. That isn't my screen resolution, but the whole point of having a larger desktop is so that I don't fill it with any one thing, and have access to everything.

On my older machine (Win98) I have a 1024 display resolution but absolutely loathe when any site makes me maximise my carefully sized 800x600 browser window.

On the newer machine, (WinXP and massive monitor), I still have the 800x600 browser windows, and not least because it enables me to easily check what my own pages look like in that resolution. However, I never have the windows maximised if I can possibly help it. That would negate the entire point of having spent money on a larger monitor in the first place.

#22 matauri

matauri

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 09:21 PM

I think part of the decision comes from your audience. If your audience is young adults in their early 20's then a higher resolution may be in order. If the site is about pensioner's insurance a lower resolution would probably be best.

I tend to agree with targeting your audience, except when it comes to ecommerce. I think that ecommerce needs to be generally targeted towards the 800x600, whereas a site targeted towards more dynamically visual genre can get away with a higher resolution.

There are alternatives to fixed 8x6 designs just being centered or plonked on the left hand side of the page with vast amounts of white space, for those that do use the higher resolutions... and that is to incorporate your background into your design. This is a practice I like to adopt. It can decieve the higer resolution viewer into believing that the 8x6 page was designed for any resolution.

Alternatively, fluid design is always the best alternative, unless the page is involving the placement of larger graphics and the use of tabless designs, then I think it is a good idea to have a fixed page width to work with.

#23 matthewmag

matthewmag

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 01 May 2004 - 08:42 PM

Whatever the statistics tell you, they don't tell you if users are surfing with the browser window maximised......... I really dislike having to maximise the browser window, don't much like it when some javascript does it for me, although I make exceptions sometimes..... Generally I keep the browser window somewhere around 600x800 and like everyone, I think, I quickly get bored of horizontal scrolling. What percentage of users surf with a maximised window, I wonder?

Fluid designs are usually going to be best but there are simple alternatives too, like designing for 600x800 and placing some decoration down the RHS so that the page doesn't look too empty at higher resolutions - not ideal as you get those horizontal scrollbars but at least you're not forced to use them.....

Perhaps more important than what resolution to design for is how to design so that users never have horizontal scrollbars........

#24 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 01 May 2004 - 09:31 PM

Fluid is bad.
(OK, its not always bad, but it can be)

There is an optimum line length for ease of reading - 100% fluid might give text lines that are far too wide. I can't be bothered to design around this (but then I am lazy).

Until the majority of users have a browser that lets me assign min and max widths to divs, I am sticking with 800x600 fixed width on the sites that matter.

#25 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 02 May 2004 - 12:46 AM

There is an optimum line length for ease of reading - 100% fluid might give text lines that are far too wide. I can't be bothered to design around this (but then I am lazy).

True - not that you are lazy - I'm talking about the optimal line length. :wink: . Although in fluid you can always set a fixed width for the main body content column.

#26 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 02 May 2004 - 05:51 AM

not that you are lazy


I absolutely AM lazy!
How dare you imply otherwise :wink:

#27 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 02 May 2004 - 11:54 PM

I absolutely AM lazy!

RALMAO don't worry gravelsack your secret is safe with me. :wink:

#28 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:26 AM

your secret is safe with me

It was supposed to be a secret?!?!

Sheesh! - I'd thought it was the brand. :)

#29 gravelsack

gravelsack

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 08:11 PM

:)

lazyseo.com is available, can't be bothered to order it though

#30 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 08:13 PM

I'm surprised you could be bothered looking it up. :)

#31 matauri

matauri

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:18 PM

ahhh...such a loverly image painted of you gravelsack to such an impressionable newbie :)

Makes me think twice in agreeing with you! But I do... my eyes get tired enough working, the last thing they want to do is scroll back & forward across the screen. I'd rather hold my arrow key & go down.

So there's anther instance of fluid sucking when flying solo. Fluid is best put in a preset container IMO.

#32 invader

invader

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 440 posts

Posted 06 May 2004 - 01:58 PM

Makes me wonder if most people on higher resolutions are more tech orientated.


Most are tech oriented.
However, i do not see sense in trying to fit more into a page.
Now when a higher resolution than 1152 comes, then you try to put even more into a page. Ultimately, you start shipping magnifying classes to viewers for looking at your website because the text is so unreadable.
Wherever Usability went.

800x600 is the optimal resolution, i think. It fits enough content on a page, and is acceptable to all markets and hardware configurations, IMO.
If the website is just made up of graphics, then 1152 might be still acceptable, but with text and carefully written sales copies, i'm not sure if the web developers really want to encourage the users to keep shifting to higher resolutions all the time and decrease readibility. What a sad rat race everywhere. damn.

#33 wiser3

wiser3

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 07 May 2004 - 10:24 AM

I design for a minimum screen resolution of 800x600 with the window maximized. I use fluid designs with graphics placed so that they come together and hold the page width at about 770px. All main navigation and information is within the 800x600, but the fluid design expands everything for larger windows. I use a left side navigation and seperate large areas of text into two columns so that people at 1024 and higher can read it better.

I have a huge monitor and use a screen resolution of 1280x800, but i never maximize the browser window. My browser window size is usually about 1024x768.

#34 fidget

fidget

    Unlurked Energy

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 June 2005 - 05:09 PM

I found this ability to think like a novice web surfer (its called plenty of alcohol - shuts down the designer in me), and came to realise that its just not humanly comfortable to scroll horizontally. Well, not as comfortable as vertical scrolling (maybe that's down to the way browsers and windows were designed?) Kind of peculiar when you remember that we read left to right and then top to bottom.

Not only that, if the majority of surfers, like me, have gone from 800x600 (windows default) to 1024x768 at some point in their computing life, they'll appreciate the new found ability to see more than one window and/or browser open at a time without having to switch between them through an extra mouse move and click. So having to fill the screen with one window is unnecessarily imposing and requires extra effort (albeit very slight).

I am a firm believer in designing for 800x600, purely for human comfort (which is almost similar to plain old usability ... isn't it?)

Of-course it doesn't stop you using 100% widths with fixed minimum widths.

#35 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 05 June 2005 - 06:29 PM

Hi fidget and welcome to Cre8asite :wave:

It's funny this thread is a year old and I'd still argue that making a site fit at 800x600 is important.

> having to fill the screen with one window is unnecessarily imposing

Good point. I rarely have any window maximised.

#36 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 05 June 2005 - 08:30 PM

go fluid, or go dual page, where you have layouts for both.

#37 Jon

Jon

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 06 June 2005 - 12:43 AM

I think you have to bow to the numbers. The stats for my homepage are:

1024x768 56.17%
800x600 20.43%



I still have 20 percent of my visitors using 800 x 600. People tend to stay with what they feel comfortable with.....until they are forced to change. Heck, 13 percent of my visitors still use Windows 98.
:)

#38 Fabius

Fabius

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 06 June 2005 - 12:54 AM

Regarding standard Personal Computers, I think the minimum valid and useful screen resolution is 800x600. Any lower resolution (e.g. 640x480) has no-sense for a standard usage (have you ever tried to use Outlook or Word at 640x480?).

If a web site is viewed only with standard PCs, you should only think to 800x600 or higher resolutions. But if a web site must be viewed also by other equipments (smartphones, pda, tablet PCs and similar) you should pay very attention to the resolution!

Here are some stats over at www.thecounter.com - but you really should go by who are your users. If you users might be the older generations, chances are very slim they might have the lower resolution to help them out with reading. Most users have now purchased a new monitor at least twice since they started using a computer.

However, Screen resolution doesn't really tell you much about how your visitors browse your site. It doesn't tell you what size icons they use, how many toolbars they use, whether they have a sidebar area open and if so, what size it is, and it doesn't guarantee your visitors are browsing with their windows maximized. The browser is a window after all.

So we can throw around resolution numbers, but just be aware that they generally have a whole lot less meaning in reality than we give them as designers. :)

#39 rpm

rpm

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 07:16 AM

@matthewmag


as far as i remember there are studies that show the relation between screen-resolution and browsers´window size.
i once read one that said: regardless the resolution - the used browser window sizes don´t differ too much:
- full screen mode was mostly used at low resolutions.
- the average browser windows used for each resolution were not higher than 1024.
(if this sentence sounds a little strange it´s because i´m not a native english speaker...)

all in all: the higher the resolution, the less people go fullscreen.
but that was about 2 years ago, maybe i´ll find some newer study... :)

#40 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9023 posts

Posted 07 June 2005 - 08:09 AM

Welcome to the Forums, rpm. :wave:

That's an excellent point you're raising.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users