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

#41 manager

manager

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1331 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 05:46 AM

Hi All,

I still use tables for my designs. Haven't got into all the "CSS tableless stuff" yet !

I find a centered table set to 770PX wide and centered looks good in 800 x 600 ( no horizontal scrolling reqd.)and 1024 x 768.

Users with diminishing eyesight like 800x600 because it's easier to read.

TreV

#42 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2041 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:14 AM

Hiya,

Your stats would tell you that I'm a 1024x768 user however my browser window (dispite being maximised) is only 800x600. This is because of the search bar that run down the side. Almost every browser has a similar bar which shows search/bookmarks/history etc. and I imagine many users have this visable.

The stats tell you the screen resolution not how big a browser window someone has :)

Tam

#43 TheManBehindTheCurtain

TheManBehindTheCurtain

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1035 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 09:40 PM

Adapting a line from the original "Stepford Wives" movie:

"Why design in 1024 x 768?"

"Because we can."

One essential event finally turned me from a "liquid layouts are the only format that true Internet professionals use" kind of guy to a "fixed layouts have their place in specific instances" type of guy. And that is: I got older.

Not so much physically older (though that happened too of course). My eyesight is fine, though the small type is looking blurry these days. No, it's simply overload. Too many years dealing with too much email and too many phone calls competing for my attention. Too many frenetic TV documentaries with jerky camera movements, constant cross-cutting, and incoherent narrative lines. Too many web layouts with flashing banners and loud colors and a multiplicity of headlines and text and graphics and colored boxes and on and on and on. Enough already! Give me a break. I yearn for simplicity. But most of all, I yearn for *clarity*.

You have to ask yourself how you think the "extra space" will contribute to communicating your message. On many 1024 layouts I see, there was "extra space" but I didn't get "more information" out of them because they were just a jumble. Line lengths that stretch far, far beyond a readable dimension. Or a cacophony of multiple columns and graphics crammed side by side. The designer thought the wider space gave him or her more creative freedom. But it was just an illusion. It gave them a space that they couldn't fill up in a fashion that communicates coherently to an average sort of person.

Anyway, even if 100% of web users suddenly were viewing your site at 1024 by 768, I think you'd have to ask yourself whether your layout will fit your communication goals. There's no single formula for success. Certainly you should "go wide" just because you can. If it makes sense, go for it. But consider your audience and whether it really connects with them.

Somes sites -- hey, like this one -- are just fine liquid. To keep the line-lengths readable, I keep the browser at only about 60% of the screen size. I guess that's fine because those who can deal with longer line lengths can have it their way. But for me, it means I'm constantly, constantly resizing my browser to fine-tune the reading size for each site.

#44 send2paul

send2paul

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2905 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 02:50 PM

Nice to see this debate still rumbling on in every corner corner of the www :)

Me old stats for the last few years tell me:

1024 X 768 viewers = 43.15%
800 X 600 viewers = 32.00%

I know that makes only 75% - but there were some people viewing my blog with telescopes and through the bottom of milk bottles etc.! ;)

#45 Minna

Minna

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 11 June 2005 - 08:46 AM

According to my stats:

1. 800 x 600 73.0 %
2. 1024 x 768 27.0 %

So it wasn't any bad advice in website hospital to recommend design for that resolution.

#46 pinbrook

pinbrook

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 08:31 AM

What are you designers using to test your sites on different resolutions?

I've recently bought a Dell flat screen that won't display less than 1240 (well it will but it looks naff), which i am happy to use as my desktop, but I'd like to find a simple method of viewing a page in 800 and 1024 for testing/compatibility

#47 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13508 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:18 AM

This free tool allows you to view at 600, 800 and up:

Sizer

#48 fidget

fidget

    Unlurked Energy

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:29 AM

I regularly use browser shots (http://browsershots.org/submit/) which is very useful for browser and resolution testing, but also have 14in, 17in and 21in montiors in the office.

#49 pinbrook

pinbrook

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:26 AM

I like Sizer! thanks

#50 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 04:40 PM

Welcome to Cre8asite fidget :wave:

I love Sizer, it's one of those must have tools!

#51 fidget

fidget

    Unlurked Energy

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 05:27 PM

thanks! :wave:




p.s. talking about screen sizes... trying to find that emoticon sent me a bit :crazyeyes:

#52 Enzo

Enzo

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 24 July 2005 - 01:52 PM

I have to have my screen set at 1280x1024, as have to look at large fine technical drawings, and wont fit onto anything lower.

You do get used to it very quickly after you have re-sized all the desptop icons.

If I use a computer somwhere else, and they have a 17" monitor set to 800x600 I have to change it, as those big chunky pixels make me think I am back in the 80's (not good as was only born in '79!)

I tend to make most things using tables, and get the content in cells that add upto an 800 width, but stick empty cells between with no width set, which expand out to fill the gaps on larger screens.

#53 Renee

Renee

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 July 2005 - 03:10 PM

I use 1280x960 and am on a Mac. Even though I can change the screen resolutions, didn't really see how my site looked on a PC (bought Virtual PC), and freaked when I did. Mac does all these wonderful things with type and friends (who tend to be in the 40+ group) said the type was a little large, but it looked OK. Hah. :roll: Thank goodness it was just a CSS fix.

#54 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 04:47 PM

Hey, what about me, I want to use my zx81 with my homebuilt serial interface, custom dram interface, and homebuilt rs232 port to view websites.
Im limited to 64x48 pixels. I demand you cater for me.

At some point you need to draw the line.
I draw the line when a monitor capable of that resolution has been around for a few years, and is dirt cheap new or second hand.
If you use 800 by 600 then you need a better supplier for your computer equipment, or a new job with a boss in the real world.

1024x768 is accessible to people now, without any cost implications to speak of.

Any higher than that and you get problems with people with bad eyesight.

#55 pinbrook

pinbrook

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 05:03 PM

a new job with a boss in the real world


abit too intolerant here.....friends of mine work for the NHS they have to use 800x600.

Our site stats still show a good 30-40% of visitors using 800x600

#56 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 05:12 PM

But I have worked in the NHS, they paid consultants enough to buy private forests for tax evasion purposes, whilst the workers got next to nothing.

The NHS has a lack of money, its boss is the government, and they need to get in the real world...... The NHS needs good equipment.

(ps the consultant was a waste of space..... I would not have paid him a tenth of his salary.)

#57 pinbrook

pinbrook

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 05:20 PM

let me know when politicians join the real world ;)

#58 pinbrook

pinbrook

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 05:20 PM

let me know when politicians join the real world ;) and I'll drop designing for 800x600


sorry finger trouble!

#59 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 05:24 PM

rotfl ;)

Politicians crack me up, I read recently that one in america is trying to pass a bill banning FIREWALLS..

There was that derrek on big brother, he is a politician I think, but I cant make my mind up if he is for real or acting...

Wish I had never given that job in the NHS up, it was the best one I have ever had, but I got conned by employment training company (I was working for free) and they told me to go for a paid job...

The department was great ( I was offered 2 jobs, I turned down the job working for the consultant mentioned earlier). It was a r&d department, and unlike at sage, it actually was a real r&d place, they even invented the worlds first moving ultrasound machine (the thing they check you with when pregant, used worldwide) in that place.

STill kicking myself for trusting that employment training place......

#60 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5405 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 10:22 PM

Get a handle on who is visiting your site an their system stats..... My sites range from 23% running 800x600 on a gadget site to almost 40% on travel site. Still must design for 800x600 or I will not respect my visitors.

#61 bragadocchio

bragadocchio

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15634 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:36 PM

Politicians crack me up, I read recently that one in america is trying to pass a bill banning FIREWALLS..


Ouch. Use a Firewall, Go to Jail

And it looks like it has been illegal in my State to do since 2001.

Of course, the computer systems that the State government uses are behind firewalls too.

Still must design for 800x600 or I will not respect my visitors.


A liquid design often works just fine for me.

And even smaller resolutions seem to be a smart thing to do these days:

http://css-discuss.i...heldStylesheets

#62 Jonathan

Jonathan

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 03:13 PM

2 years on..

I still use 800x600, but am noticing more and more sites are making me scroll sideways.

#63 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13508 posts

Posted 21 March 2009 - 03:53 PM

I'm noticing this too. Lately, more sites I'm asked to review are fixed at 1024 and anything under that requires scrolling. They're also not adapting to mobile phones.

#64 Robert_Paulson

Robert_Paulson

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 22 March 2009 - 02:29 PM

After awhile I just grew tired of limiting my real estate for a small percentage of people. 800 pixels doesn't give you what it used to, I guess. Liquid layouts are okay, except that you're still designing it for an 800 pixel wide screen that just gets stretched laterally when a visitor's resolution is higher, which can lead to a pretty goofy layout at some of the resolutions I've seen some people operate at.

So, yeah. My expectation for visitors is that they jump on board - ditch their IE5 and 13" monochrome CRT and enjoy Web 2.0. I think that movement has been happening long enough that it's now less a matter of respecting the visitor and more reminding them that they need to upgrade.

#65 phaithful

phaithful

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 800 posts

Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:46 PM

Well I for one am excited about the latest article on A List Apart: Fluid Grids. It's not a complete solution, but it's a very intriguing one that can be scaled from < 800x600 to > 1024x768. Definitely worth a read.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users