What is your screen resolution?

[contactsonia]

Hi,

We are in process of re-developing our website so I was deciding for which screen resolution I should optimized my site. Our present site is optimized for 800 x 600 screen resolution but I think most of the people now having 1024 x 768 screen resolution. I want my site to be in fixed width not in percentage so it is very important decision for me.

Could you please vote for your screen resolution so that I can an idea?

Thanks,
Sonia

[MrX]

are webmasters your target audience for the site?

my revenue and traffic increased dramatically for one of my sites when i optimized the resolution for 800x600 screens.

[madkad]

I am 1024 x 768 and its been like that for a long time :)

[contactsonia]

are webmasters your target audience for the site?

my revenue and traffic increased dramatically for one of my sites when i optimized the resolution for 800x600 screens.
Yes, I am going to redesign my hosting company website - http://www.realvaluehosting.com

[jezzz]

Through Modern Standard! Site Must be well designed for 1024x768 my all sites! are optimized in standard

[Mooseman]

My screen resolution is 1280*1024..

Anyway, I always tend to optimize my sites for 1024*768 cause I don't think theres many users that has lower than that anymore.. that may be different from site to site though I guess. And it depends on what site it is, sometimes it's a must to think about the 800*600 users aswell I guess

[nickharper]

I would add Google Analytics if you don't use it already as it has the capability to track the screen resolution of your visitors, like below:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u110/nick-harper/google.gif

Then you can see what they use :) As you can see, on my site (Webdesign site) nobody uses 800 x 600.

Hope this helps.

[Boardwalk]

1280 x 1024 here :)

[quite]

1400x900 for me :d widescreen 17" laptop

[story97]

1920X1200 right now, but i frequently use 2560X1600 (hp 30 inch LCD).

But remember, resolution doesn't have much to do with websites because once you get over 1024X768 the chances are much higher that people are not using full screen for their browser. So keep that in mind. None of the stats you see can tell you that. They'll only tell you what the resolution of the monitor is.

[eskwire]

I am on two monitors both at 1280 by 1024.

nickharper has the right idea. Add Google analytics to your site and see how the numbers come in.

I also use analytics to look at the type of internet connection they have. If I notice that a site I am about to redesign has lots of dial up users I will present that to the client as a reason to reduce image size.

[rsanek]

I optimize my sites for the 1024 x 768 resolution, but use 1280 x 1024 myself.

[FPForum]

1680 x 1050 and i love it..everything fits nicely on my 23 inch flat screen :)

[Dan Schulz]

Screen resolution is meaningless - how many times do I have to say it?

It doesn't matter if your software is reporting that my screen resolution is 1024x768 or 1600x1200 - if I want my browser to be 800px wide, it'll be 800px wide. Plain and simple.

You might want to read this thread on SitePoint before redesigning your site.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=463591

[night|shift]

I'm using a widescreen 19" with 1440x900. much nicer than 1280x1024 imo.

~

[Lordy]

1440x900 widescreen too! :p

[Webice]

1280x1024, I think this is the most common screen resolution.

[alan_smithee]

1280 x 800, because its the native resolution for my monitor

[twistedspikes]

Not everyone has their browser full screen. I know I don't usually, I have my screen split into 4 sections, browser taking up one of them, maybe two depending on what else i'm doing.

But thats just cause my screen is big enough that I can do that happily. Even still I know a lot of people who keep their browser at less than 800x600.

But it depends what you want to do, some people like to think if people are using 800x600 then they don't deserve to be on their site, same as people who think people using IE shouldn't be on their site. But that is a bad way to think, your cutting your potentential market down by a lot.

I'd design for at least 1024x768, if not 800x600. or just have a site that resizes as the window resizes with a min-width and min-height (although this does cause problems)

[Chifforobe]

I am not sure if it has been said but Yahoo has already made the move to 1024 resolution. In the event someone has less than 1024 it loads their old design of 800 x 600. I would think it is safe to progress to the next width 960 for 1024 resolution.

You may want to check the w3counter stats if you are still unsure. Also check your own log records to see the most popular resolutions.

[seem]

1024x768 and 1280 x 1024

[deathshadow]

Designing to a fixed resolution is about as stupid as attempting to use a WYSIWYG to make a website. Just as what you see is NEVER going to be what the user gets, given the wide range of screen sizes out there from mobile devices to uber high-end workstation layouts, fixing to one resolution is just moronic.

I design all of my pages as fluidic - if the client REALLY wants fixed width I then just fix the outermost container though I always advise AGAINST it. At bare minimum one should do semi-fluid so people who actually run decent (1600 across or more) screens aren't staring at half the screen being empty... likewise people with big screens often run the browser two-thirds to half the screen width so just because people HAVE a 1280 screen, doesn't mean they want your page up that large...

But then, as I always say about fluidic vs. fixed, I make this crazy assumption that if the user has the browser blown up that big, they want the page that big - otherwise why did they maximize it?

I generally consider fixed width layouts a TOTAL /FAIL/ regardless of what size you choose.

Oh, as to my own setup, I'm running 4480x1200 spanning three displays on my workstation, but my G4 laptop only runs 800x600, my dell craptop runs 1024x768, and my PDA runs 320x480 ;)

[contactsonia]

I generally consider fixed width layouts a TOTAL /FAIL/ regardless of what size you choose.

Sorry but I don't agree on this with you. There are times when you need to design a template with fixed width to maintain the similar looks on all the screen resolutions.

I also thinks that 800 x 600 resolution is dead now.

I created the same poll on WHT also (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=642713) and nobody voted for 800 x 600 like on this poll.

[deathshadow]

I also thinks that 800 x 600 resolution is dead now.


Except for Opera mobile, Opera Mini, Opera on the DS, ultra mobile PC's...

Sorry but I don't agree on this with you. There are times when you need to design a template with fixed width to maintain the similar looks on all the screen resolutions.

And therin lies the flaw in thinking. Getting one's panties in a twist about 'pixel perfect' at the cost of alienating users not just at 800x600 or 640x480, but also at 1600x1200, 2048x1536, etc, etc...

Pixel perfect layouts are overrated, and very VERY rarely have I seen a graphical layout that 'demanded' it... Though I have seen a lot of layouts people THINK demands it which are usually just broken on "large font/120dpi" machines (an increasingly common setting as smaller LCD's start to hit the 1280 mark), broken when resizing even in Opera and IE7 (which you have to WORK at to pull off), etc, etc. Simple fact is screen resolutions are going to keep growing - one's page should be ready for that instead of becoming a 'crappy little stripe' down the middle of the screen. (like most 800 fixed width pages are today)

Usually it just boils down to being a lazy shortcut or lack of understanding how to slice one's images.... or how to design one's images for use on the web in the first place.

[ferde]

1024 is the most popular resolution according to my web site stats also.

[Dan Schulz]

And how many people with those 1024x748 screen resolutions are viewing your site with their browsers maximized?

[RovingCalypso]

1024 x 768 and its pretty much the standard resolution.

[deathshadow]

And how many people with those 1024x748 screen resolutions are viewing your site with their browsers maximized?

Which is the other point - I have a 1600x1200 display as my primary (out of three), but often I only use it at half width to have other applications using the space (like IM windows or html editors)

[codem]

i think you have to optimse for 1024 x 768 - standard

[Dan Schulz]

If tha'ts what you really think then you need to read The Definitive FAQ on Screen Resolution (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=463591) by Simon Pieters [link: sitepoint.com].

[Stomme poes]

On the first site I built, I used one of Stu's menus, which was a fixed width of almost 1024 pixels (horizontal dropdown). It pretty much set the width for the whole page, which sux for anyone using a smaller screen. Since this site is a small sub-set of a larger site (which I'm currently redesigning from their 1997-style) I might just leave it like it is (unless I'm ordered otherwise). However, I've been making throw-away templates for experimenting on stuff and so far I've done them all fluid (and man, every single div has to be checked and rechecked for various resolution-sizes AND font changes!).
So far the plan is to make the "main" site fluid. This may mandate a vertical side menu as it's also large (if it were a small menu, I could just center it in the middle).

Another site I've made is a fixed width, but the important stuff (forms, text) are mostly in the center and not bigger than 600-700 pixels wide, so the site can be used in smaller resolutions. I dunno if I'd change this if I were to re-write it.

Fluids are definitely more flexible, just a bit more work.

[story97]

Screen resolution is meaningless - how many times do I have to say it?

It doesn't matter if your software is reporting that my screen resolution is 1024x768 or 1600x1200 - if I want my browser to be 800px wide, it'll be 800px wide. Plain and simple.

You might want to read this thread on SitePoint before redesigning your site.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=463591

It was already said
1920X1200 right now, but i frequently use 2560X1600 (hp 30 inch LCD).

But remember, resolution doesn't have much to do with websites because once you get over 1024X768 the chances are much higher that people are not using full screen for their browser. So keep that in mind. None of the stats you see can tell you that. They'll only tell you what the resolution of the monitor is.

[raidenraiden]

I think its pretty safe to go for 1024x768 these days

[hans]

Hi,

We are in process of re-developing our website so I was deciding for which screen resolution I should optimized my site. Our present site is optimized for 800 x 600 screen resolution but I think most of the people now having 1024 x 768 screen resolution. I want my site to be in fixed width not in percentage so it is very important decision for me.

Could you please vote for your screen resolution so that I can an idea?

Thanks,
Sonia

the screen resolution of the DP forum members is of NO value to you at all - far more accurate would be to get the screen resolution data from your own Google analytics account! this would be accurate data for YOUR specific site visitors.

for my site's 12'000+ daily unique visitors for visitors from 210+ countries, the 600x800 is down to below 10% - steadily decreasing.

since you appear to have no analytics account, here my today's screen resolution stat from G analytics:

1 1024x768 45.58%
2 1280x1024 13.98%
3 1280x800 12.15%
4 800x600 9.59%
5 1440x900 4.93%
6.1680x1050 3.70%
7 1152x864 3.40%
8.1280x768 1.43%
9 1280x960 0.95%
10 1920x1200 0.91%

the lower resolutions like 800x600 AND the 768x1024 shrink quiet rapidly in favor of higher resolutions.
hence to construct a site for 768x1024 certainly is safe and 600x800 too old-fashioned - stone age history of www.
BTW i have NO webmaster or minimal webmaster visitors just average www users from all over the world.

more important than just resolution also is the FONT size definition - Font-size px vs pt (http://www.kriyayoga.com/love_blog/post.php/599) with the wide range of resolutions around - still most webmasters have a font size defined in px in their CSS and thus have a relative font size depending on screen resolution. most of the current sites still have their font size defined for an OLD resolution of 600x800 and when viewed in a high resolution such as my 1680x1050 or even higher, the actual font size is so tiny that pleasant reading requires 1 or 2 step font size increase ( Ctrl + + )
this easily can be prevented by replacing the px with pt and adjusting the size to a human readable font size as an absolute size on ALL screen resolutions.

when i switched all my CSS site-wide years ago from px to pt - I invited an older friend - 60+ yrs old - normally wearing glasses, and had him view different pt font sizes, then i chose the one that he very comfortably could read.

[wilsong43]

Just reduced mine to 1024x768 to better see the world as my potential customers might. Google Analytics is the solution to percentage of customers who are hitting your site. Simple straight forward answer to a tough choice.

[Alexander the Great]

1920X1200 right now, but i frequently use 2560X1600 (hp 30 inch LCD).

But remember, resolution doesn't have much to do with websites because once you get over 1024X768 the chances are much higher that people are not using full screen for their browser. So keep that in mind. None of the stats you see can tell you that. They'll only tell you what the resolution of the monitor is.

Yup. I'm at high res according to the poll, but I never run my browser maximized. That's a waste of the resolution - half the reason I got it is to be able to focus on more stuff at the same time. Sure only one app can "have the focus" but it's often very important to look at one thing as a reference while you work on another thing.

Case in point: how many people have 2 screens?

[Dan Schulz]

It was already said

No, what you said has meaning - which is also completely false. "Once you get over" implies a condition, or meaning. Something must either have meaning or not have meaning. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Just ask Marie Antoinette if you don't believe me.

Remember, as a designer/developer, once you leave the relative comfort and safety of your graphics program and start coding the site, you lose all control over how the Web page is displayed. If you (the designer/developer) want it set one way and I (the user) want it set another way, I'm going to win, no matter what you try to do. Even Flash won't cut it, since if I don't want to let the Flash plugin run (except on certain sites like YouTube), there's not a thing you can do about it.

Don't forget about mobile devices either. Not all run the same displays, or handle page the same way. Some mobile devices still don't even support HTML, though thankfully that number is decreasing on a daily basis as more and more people get better cell phones (or at least ones that are capable of dealing with HTML).

This isn't about black being white (or various shades of grey), or the grass being blue or cats and dogs sleeping together. It's an absolute truth, meaning there can be no conditions or "standards" imposed upon it whatsoever.

I think its pretty safe to go for 1024x768 these days

I'm on a 1024x768 display, and I don't always have my browser maximized. If I were to visit a site with a minimum display set for that size, chances are pretty damn good that I'm going to leave and never come back, UNLESS the horizontal overflow were to be handled gracefully and the "hidden" content were not vital (like a menu).

the screen resolution of the DP forum members is of NO value to you at all - far more accurate would be to get the screen resolution data from your own Google analytics account! this would be accurate data for YOUR specific site visitors.


Correct. Though you don't need a Google Analytics account. Your own site's server logs will suffice just fine if they're of a certain minimum quality (which thankfully most are these days).

for my site's 12'000+ daily unique visitors for visitors from 210+ countries, the 600x800 is down to below 10% - steadily decreasing.

That's all fine and dandy but it still doesn't mean anything. Not everyone is going to be browsing with their browser maximized, especially if they're running a multiple monitor setup (like deathshadow does).

the lower resolutions like 800x600 AND the 768x1024 shrink quiet rapidly in favor of higher resolutions.
hence to construct a site for 768x1024 certainly is safe and 600x800 too old-fashioned - stone age history of www.
BTW i have NO webmaster or minimal webmaster visitors just average www users from all over the world.

That's a very dangerous idea. As I've said repeatedly, not everyone will be browsing with their browser maximized - you HAVE to keep 800x600 visitors in mind when designing your site. Just because your log data indicates they're not there, doesn't mean they're actually gone.

more important than just resolution also is the FONT size definition - Font-size px vs pt (http://www.kriyayoga.com/love_blog/post.php/599) with the wide range of resolutions around - still most webmasters have a font size defined in px in their CSS and thus have a relative font size depending on screen resolution. most of the current sites still have their font size defined for an OLD resolution of 600x800 and when viewed in a high resolution such as my 1680x1050 or even higher, the actual font size is so tiny that pleasant reading requires 1 or 2 step font size increase ( Ctrl + + )
this easily can be prevented by replacing the px with pt and adjusting the size to a human readable font size as an absolute size on ALL screen resolutions.

when i switched all my CSS site-wide years ago from px to pt - I invited an older friend - 60+ yrs old - normally wearing glasses, and had him view different pt font sizes, then i chose the one that he very comfortably could read.

Howeve,r while that will obey the system metric, it's still bad for accessibility reasons since the most popular browser in the world (Internet Explorer) will not resize pixels or absolute measurements (such as points, picas, and centimeters). So if someone cannot resize the text in their browser, they still won't be able to read the text. Especially if they're stuck on a corporate network running IE 6 (meaning they have no choice whatsoever).

Just reduced mine to 1024x768 to better see the world as my potential customers might. Google Analytics is the solution to percentage of customers who are hitting your site. Simple straight forward answer to a tough choice.

As I said above, any server logs will be able to give you the same data. And as I also said, just because the SCREEN RESOLUTION is set to 1024x768, does not mean that the BROWSER will be maximized. There are far too many combinations of hardware and software configurations out there for any one designer to keep track of, and trying to optimize for a screen resolution on the flawed idea that the designer is in total control (he's not) is just going to cause far more problems than it could ever possibly hope to solve (which it can't to begin with).

Yup. I'm at high res according to the poll, but I never run my browser maximized. That's a waste of the resolution - half the reason I got it is to be able to focus on more stuff at the same time. Sure only one app can "have the focus" but it's often very important to look at one thing as a reference while you work on another thing.

Case in point: how many people have 2 screens?

As I said earlier in this post, deathshadow's running a triple monitor setup. Does that count? ;)

[longhornfreak]

Keep in mind your asking web developers that generally know more about computers than your common person. I would think most people would have their screens on default, which in most cases is 800 x 600

[Dlabs]

1680x1050 - it seems more and more lcds are widescreens these days, something that will have a fundamental impact on web design 2-3 years from now.

[deathshadow]

However, while that will obey the system metric, it's still bad for accessibility reasons since the most popular browser in the world (Internet Explorer) will not resize pixels or absolute measurements (such as points, picas, and centimeters). So if someone cannot resize the text in their browser, they still won't be able to read the text. Especially if they're stuck on a corporate network running IE 6 (meaning they have no choice whatsoever).


With IE7 at 40% or more penetration now, I'm usually willing to not worry about PX resizing anymore. Someone really cares about resizing the text they can get off the pot and either upgrade to 7, or use one of the other browsers that do it properly.

BUT, there is a key to using PX and that is to, as both of you pointed out, remember that in most browsers at default zoom it ignores the system metric - (as does %/em in Firefux and other gecko browsers). Because of that you have to keep in mind that some users (something like 20% on my own sites logs) are running 'large fonts' - meaning they want to see fonts 20% bigger than normal.

Because of this a good rule of thumb is that anything smaller than 12px is "useless", and 14px is "the smallest comfortable size".

Still, as Hans pointed out pt is a good choice... If you restrict yourself to 9 or 10pt as the bottom end, you should be completely safe for all users. How can I make this 'wild claim'? Simple... It's what the windows UI defaults to for a size. Windows UI font sizes are declared in pt, 9pt and 10pt specifically - so if they can't read 10pt text, they probably can't read their own start menu either.

[Alexander the Great]

As I said earlier in this post, deathshadow's running a triple monitor setup. Does that count? ;)

I don't know if it counts but it sure makes me jealous!

I'm gonna go ahead and make a bet death's hadow (:D) doesn't maximize his browser across all three screens. And that he probably had good reason to need to - which is to say he wanted other things available to his eyes even when he uses the internet. I think that last part also applies to the guy using his laptop with only one screen on the airplane. I've never seen any statistics for how many people maximize their browser but I bet it's below half.

[ayu]

1024 x 768 :)

This resolution is the best for now.

[venam]

i think 1280 x 1024 is the default

[deathshadow]

You know, I have a question:

Why the **** do all these statistic sites measure using screen x & y, instead of actually detecting the actual BROWSER width and height?

I'm going to set up my highest traffic website to start logging document.
body.clientWidth - that would be the REAL number to look at, not screen.width. Given that said site nets about 40K page views a day from 5,000 or so uniques, it should make a decent sampling.

Of course, the 'fun' part is going to be that there could be over 2,000 different results logged.

[Dan Schulz]

Do it, Jason. You know I'll be there (like I am, every day).

[Stomme poes]

I also thinks that 800 x 600 resolution is dead now.

I just read in the Dutch news that all the big telecom players are gearing up for the increase in mobile phone internetting. Someone here mentioned yahoo going to a 1024 width page-- yet in the articles here they talk of how MSN and Yahoo and google (some part of google, not the main search site) are all fighting each other to be the first to release "mobile-geared" pages. T-Mobile was one of the biggest hypers of the trend. Increase in mobile phone internetting in the Netherlands has been raising by a third each month (if I remember correctly).

Dead for the PC maybe. But why force yourself to either have two sites or two imported CSS files, if it's possible to have one page work for most? (Some sites just have too much stuff crammed on the page to work good at tiny resolutions but I don't put these in the majority).