1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Do we need to design for 800x600 ?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by guyfox, Feb 24, 2007.

?

Do you consider 800x600 when you design?

  1. No, I design only for 1024x768 or higher res

    62.1%
  2. Yes, of course. I think ignoring for 800x600 is unwise.

    37.9%
  1. UrbanMonk

    UrbanMonk Peon

    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    Can I suggest a compromise? I try to design for 800x600 but with my recent site (my first blog), which needs a lot more space, I kept it a 3 column design, but moved the less important stuff on to the right column.

    Nav is on left column, content in middle, other widgets and so on are on the right column.

    That way 800x600 readers can use the site normally without scrolling to the right.

    What do you guys think?
    http://www.urbanmonk.net/
    SEMrush
    I'm also starting to move towards 1024x768, as I hate to waste real estate!
     
    UrbanMonk, Mar 18, 2007 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Xeoro

    Xeoro Peon

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #62
    My designs are usually very compact but that's mainly because I concentrate on the pixel side of things in layouts.

    I guess, we should start to turn over a new leaf and cater more for the 1024 generation and push the 800 generation aside.

    I think, it's merely impossible to buy a new monitor now with 800 as the default.
     
    Xeoro, Mar 18, 2007 IP
  3. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #63
    I would go for 1024x768 as that's been the default setting ever since windows xp, and like somebody else said, new monitors don't even support 800x600. But hey, if you can fit everything in 800x600, might as well make it look nice for that extra, small percentage of visitors because it's less annoying for someone at 1024x768 to see it smaller then for an 800x600 visiter having to side scroll. I think it should just be low on the priorities list since it's catering to a minority now.
     
    SolutionX, Mar 18, 2007 IP
  4. jezzz

    jezzz Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    190
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #64
    some days ago i usually to design only in 800x600 as the resolutions increasing and people moving to 1024x768 resolutions so making it
     
    jezzz, Mar 19, 2007 IP
  5. dead0eye

    dead0eye Peon

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    The best option to go through is to combine the fix & the fluid option of design. Mix % and fix width placements so that your content will look good in 800x600 resolutions but it'll still look like it covers the whole screen nevertheless.

    John
     
    dead0eye, Mar 20, 2007 IP
  6. Josh Inno

    Josh Inno Guest

    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    And even those who do 'maximize' some of their apps, don't always have everything maximized. I often operate, temporarily, on maximum resolution, as I have two screens, but occasionally shrink a couple windows so I can have 3, or even 4 open at once. I also typically shrink a browser window if I'm watching video or music, and have IM windows open next to it so that I can chat and watch at the same time. A lot of people are starting to move to smaller window sizes.
     
    Josh Inno, Mar 20, 2007 IP
  7. jjpmarketing

    jjpmarketing Peon

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #67
    I personally cannot stand pages optimized for 800 x 600. The only people that are viewing at this resolution are people with vision problems. I say the best way to make certain everyone stays happy is to develop it in a way that will auto detect their computers resolution and load the pages based on that setting. For example if they are set a 1024 x 768 have the page load at that same resolution and if it is at 800 x 600 have it load optimized for that resolution. I am not even sure if that is possible, but I hate having to scroll for information. I want to see as much information as I can in my dual 21" monitors running at 1600 x 1200. You may be able to write site settings into the code somehow where the user could go in and change what the page is optimized for. Either way, I only know a little HTML, so I am not certain how much trouble that would be.
     
    jjpmarketing, Nov 1, 2007 IP
  8. jonimontana

    jonimontana Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #68
    no , only +- 10% use 800X600...
    the best way to make Css design base on %
     
    jonimontana, Nov 1, 2007 IP
  9. vinogradov

    vinogradov Active Member

    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #69
    8.20% use 800x600 resolution for a typical warez site
    0.05% use 640x480 resolution for a typical warez site

    Big difference but if its not more then 10% then i dont care!

    F*** 800x600 USERS! j/k
     
    vinogradov, Nov 1, 2007 IP
  10. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,976
    Likes Received:
    1,635
    Best Answers:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #70
    But again you can't trust those numbers - just because the users screen resolution is 1024 or higher, doesn't mean that's how big the window is.

    Hell, quackintosh users cannot even REALLY maximize a window. (another of my UI complaints)
     
    deathshadow, Nov 1, 2007 IP
  11. Vista

    Vista Peon

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #71
    1024*768 .haha
     
    Vista, Nov 2, 2007 IP
  12. Divisive Cottonwood

    Divisive Cottonwood Peon

    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    35
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72
    I always design for 800x600 - it's not difficult.

    And if even not fitting all information into the space, put the least important info in the far right hand column like the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
     
    Divisive Cottonwood, Nov 2, 2007 IP
  13. jjpmarketing

    jjpmarketing Peon

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73

    I am fine with something like that type of setup (guardian site). What I can't stand is the white space not being used. I don't have a problem with making maybe 10% for whitespace and then 70% for main content and 20% for sidebar type stuff. A little white space makes it easier on the eyes. A lot of white space just makes a site look cheap. I have a problem with very long pages as well. If you have to scroll down a little, that is fine. If you have to scroll for 5 minutes and you are still not at the end of the page... that gets on my last nerve. Ok. Enough ranting for now. :p
     
    jjpmarketing, Nov 2, 2007 IP
  14. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #74
    I think we should start making all non .mobi names @ 1024x768+ and all .mobi names with auto adjusting layout to each small screen size depending on the device (server side coding can do this, at least in .net).
     
    SolutionX, Nov 3, 2007 IP
  15. jjpmarketing

    jjpmarketing Peon

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75

    Really I don't think mobile designed pages have a use for graphics so the resolution shouldn't matter as it will be like the old text/link based sites.

    As long as those pages are designed to wrap whatever text or link the page is displaying in each users specific device type: ex: one size would be needed for the flip phone sized screens, another for the half phone sized smartphone/pocketpc like the moto q, and another size for the full sized screen like the samsung i730 (which would need both the horizontal size and vertical sizes).

    Basically the mobile pages would need something to detect what environment it is in due to the varying shapes and sizes of screens. And who is to say that phones will be the only application for mobile pages. Eventually there will be home appliances conneted to the net with their varying sizes of LCD screens to display mobile pages.
     
    jjpmarketing, Nov 5, 2007 IP
  16. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #76
    Plenty of opportunity to use graphics for mobi sites, just itty bitty ones :) Have to revert back to designing for dial-up, limit colors, etc... then you have no performance issues, especially if you have most of the work done server side.
     
    SolutionX, Nov 6, 2007 IP
  17. Nora

    Nora Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #77
    I don't design for 800x600. I try to make the site look as good as possible for those using older resolutions but its very limiting. Designing for 800x600 and below would mean that I can't use leaderboard banners and big graphics.
     
    Nora, Nov 6, 2007 IP
  18. jjpmarketing

    jjpmarketing Peon

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #78
    Text Links work best for flip phone size and the moto q sized screens. The full sized screen phones could probably handle some small graphics. Really with the resolution capabilities of these phone a link to the graphic is better. I have seen mobile sites that used the following format, which I liked because it loaded the page fast and still gave me the option to view graphics I wanted to view.

    Link to another site/page
    Link to another site/page
    link to image.jpg (this wouldn't take you to another page but would open the graphic on the page you were on).

    This type of setup works really well especially with how you navigate on smartphones and flipphones (no touch screen)

    PocketPC's are a different story because you have the stylus you can use to scroll with and click with.

    A simplified approach is better for the other style (smartphone/flipphone) because you jump from link to link when navigating instead jump to every single item on the page.

    Yes you are right about the itty bitty graphics and dialup, but who wants to look at graphics that are low quality. I would much rather not see them at all and see text links in its place. Graphics are better suited for the non mobile internet. The bandwidth available on these phones isn't robust enough yet to really handle decent graphics. But maybe that is just me, because I am a speed person and cannot stand to wait for pages to load.
     
    jjpmarketing, Nov 6, 2007 IP
  19. SolutionX

    SolutionX Peon

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    22
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    I think you make some really good points. You're probably spot on right now, I think once it takes off next year though the majority of screens will be big enough to make some nice layouts, and wireless broadband is already as fast as dsl and not much more expensive.
     
    SolutionX, Nov 6, 2007 IP
  20. jjpmarketing

    jjpmarketing Peon

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #80
    Most of the wireless networks I know of are still doing that burstable bs. You will have burstable speeds between 128k and 1M. More times than not it will be around 512k to 768k which is too slow. Now the ATT network is working on something that I believe will do 2M... but I am not sure when that will be ready. Once they get the wireless networks fast enough (2M would be sufficient) then you will see more graphics on mobile sites. However, the biggest problem with that speed is reception. If your signal isn't in a good area like a metro area, then it drops down to the old 128k speeds. Oh and the pricing is still too high. I checked verizon and they charge $60 per month. I don't what other providers are charging.

    As far as the phones go, the screen will likely not get much bigger than the full size pocket pc's screens that take up the whole phone. It won't get bigger for the simple fact that noone will want to carry around a mini laptop for a cell phone. MotoQ is probably the best screen I have seen for a phone... it isn't too big (if that is even possible), and yet it isn't too small either.

    I think the iPhone does something different with the pages. I think you can view full size pages on the iPhone, and use the touch screen to scroll around the page. I don't have an iPhone, so I am not certain about that. That might be the future of mobile pages... either that or having the ability to zoom in and out on a web page.
     
    jjpmarketing, Nov 6, 2007 IP
    SolutionX likes this.