All my sites are currently 800x600 friendly, but I was looking in my stats the other day and it would seem that only about 2% are using that resolution. Surprisingly 1024X768 wasn't as large a proportion as I thought it would be - 1200x1024 is taking a big chunk. Guess lots of people have 17in tft monitors now.
well I optimize websites for all resolutions... but general trend is obvious, next year there will be zero users using 800X
800 by 600, No way. I become really impossible to fit content. No I am designing layouts which are compatible with at least 1024 by 786. However sometimes I have to design layout compatible with 800 by 600. It really becomes hard to me then yo bring out something good.
That's NOT true. These are the stats for this year on one of my sites: 1. 1024x768 339,676 57.08% 2. 800x600 106,770 17.94% 3. 1280x1024 56,365 9.47% 4. 1280x800 37,562 6.31% 5. 1152x864 19,268 3.24% 6. 1440x900 9,189 1.54% 7. 1280x768 6,725 1.13% 8. 1280x960 4,414 0.74% 9. 1680x1050 3,454 0.58% 10. 1400x1050 1,923 0.32% 11. 640x480 1,526 0.26% 12. 1600x1200 1,191 0.20% 13. 1920x1200 907 0.15% 14. 1280x720 725 0.12% 15. 240x160 528 0.09% Code (markup):
I myself have got relatives who use 800x600 on a 17" screen. Can't blame them for doing so. This is common practice among elder people. Does not mean they are to be disregarded though. Some of them do their shopping exclusively online, and if your website is targeting them, by making it not fully accessible your business is likely to pay for that on the long run.
I design my sites to look their best at 1024x768 but still be easily compatible (resizable) at 800*600. I HATE PAGES THAT REQUIRE YOU TO SCROLL SIDE TO SIDE!
Nah, I don't design using tables, and if you use percentages, some text columns can get unreadably wide in wide-aspect screens with high resolutions.
Yes and no. It's really down to the site target audience. You wouldn't worry about having 1024x768 for a site targeted purely at internet savy people. Obviously it's a concern for a larger audience, you don't want to alienate 15% of your visitors!
I think it really depends on your target audience. If less than 5% of my visitors use that screen resolution and I really need that extra real estate in my design, I'm not going to hold back for the other 95%. Some people still use Netscape 4.x but I wouldn't go out of my way to accommodate such a small percentage of users. There comes a time when people need to move on , upgrade and get with the times. Granted, not everyone can but again, you can't please everyone. I still remember making the decision to stop designing for 640x480 like it was yesterday
I disagree. Tables is still the best (and sometimes only) method to show multicolumn data. Can be true if you run a simple blog, but on other sites sometimes you need more than DIVs and SPANs.
I agree, side scrolling is a major deterant for staying on a site, it's something that turns be away almost straight away, although some sites seem to even not consider the 1024*768 people, let alone the lower. It's surprising though that Google don't use table-less designs.
I think that you still need to accomodate 800x600 resolution users, but do not design directly for them. I create sites that display well at most resolutions by using tables in particular ways adn images that will fill out space if needed by higher or lower resolutions. You will always have those users who will use 800x600 because of visual impairment reasons or they have just not upgraded their monitor or graphics card. In short, they have to be recognized, but your site should not be altered specifically for them. Robert Rio RFR Web Design, LLC www.rfrweb.com
Good point about the "less productive" users run apps maximized? Why would they be less productive with maximized apps? I think for example Photoshop is an app that you HAVE to have maximized, whilst MSN Messenger or AIM is not... So it depends on what app you are running too