Do you still code for a 800 x 600 resolution?

I also use the 770 px or 768 px

but what is the best !

 

Yes and No. I code for a width of around 1000px, but ensure that lower resolution screen users can still scroll to all content...might not be pretty, but it works.

 

I always create "stretching" layouts. Its really annoying still thinking of users resolutions when you can just create "stretching" ones

 

no ........................ never 800x600 layout i hate that

 

It's not about what you want, it's about what your visitors need.

 

Currently 1024×768 (XGA/XVGA, eXtended), 1280×1024 (SXGA Super eXtended Graphics Array), and 1600×1200 resolution (UXGA, Ultra-eXtended) are the most common display resolutions

 

I usually cater for the majority, so it's 970px wide, unless customer specifies 768px. To be honest the 800x600 will all but die out in 1 year, and only clunky janitor PCs will be left at that resolution and no one will use them anyway.

 

What part of "Screen Resolution Is Meaningless" do you people not understand? Honestly! Take a look. Just because the screen resolution is set to a particular size does NOT mean that the browser will be occupying all of it.

 

Are you both totally gormless? It is not about the screen resolution. It is about the browser size. Multiple studies have found that only slightly fewer than 70% of web users run their browsers maximized. The rest, >30% of all users run their browsers reduced in size. As screen size increases, the proportion of maximized browsers decreases. At tech oriented sites, the number of maximized browsers is <50%. Likely two reasons for the difference, techies probably have larger than average screens, and techies have less desire to waste screen/desktop real estate.

gary

 

there's more to the internet and internet life than the techie nerd world

 

Your clueless point being?

The numbers I referenced were derived from:

* A technically oriented site - Baekdal.com
* Two teenage fashion sites.
* One women's fashion site.
* One Male fashion site.

The study was quite obviously aimed at a broad consumer audience. Do buy some clue before further flaunting your ignorance.

gary

 

Well 800x600 or dynamic tables are not so bad
For old users they just fit to their monitor and for new hitech users with wide monitors and firefox addons like split browser can see two screens side by side at the same browser (1680x1050 for example fits fine two screens)

 

I code only in fixed 1000px wide these days

 

a perfect example of someone trying too hard to look smart and failing badly

 

building for 1024 x 768 is the industry standard in my opinion.

 

I just use percentages.

 

Please tell me you're joking. Screen resolution is meaningless. There is no "industry standard" for screen resolutions since it doesn't mean anything. Just because your logs are showing people are using screen resolutions of 1024x768 doesn't mean their browsers are set to use all of that space. Please read this thread over at SitePoint for the reasons why screen resolution is meaningless, and should not be taken into consideration to the extent of designing for a fixed width in the first place:

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

 

i still code for 800x600. too much information hurt my eyes
if i had more time i go for fluid ones though.

 

It depends on site's statistics, but I prefer wider ones.

 

Hello,
Yes I design for 800x, using 770px, but in screens with high resolution, this not look very good.