Do you still code for a 800 x 600 resolution?

I use diffferent sizes when I design. But mostley 800x600.

 

I gave up on 800x600 last year and redesigned my site for 1024x768.

Regards,

Robert

 

Nope. Either way you're going to block out a certain niche of people anyway, e.g, language, handicap accessible, flash, javascript, so blocking out 800x600 to me is just another group.

I have no problem with people who think differently, so don't argue with me.

 

I usually don't care. If a guy sits with a 800*600 I think he doesn't care about the h-scrolling anyway.
I think about those users when I have to (customers) but usually I don't care about it. Unless, of course, over 15% of the users on my sites where running on 800*600 or soemthing

 

I set my browser to 800×600, and care very much about h-scrolling. In most cases, there is no compelling reason for a page not to fit except that the designer was not the sharpest tool on the bench.

So why would you think that presenting barriers to as many as 1 of 6 visitors is OK? How would you know whether they're viewing in a less than maximized window, anyway? Look at your own 'portfolio' page. Where did you find the odd width of 812px? Had it been 768px, it would fit an 800px wide browser without that half inch (actually, .46in/1.16cm) of scrolling. How would that have destroyed the oh so wonderful design?

gary

 

Well, my first question to you is, can you access my portfolio? lol I haven't been able to acess my site since thursday, that's odd

I see your point, I have no idea why I did 812px instead of 768px, it just happened. But if there are many people watching in "unmaximized" browser windows, why would it be better to make it 768px instead then? Wouldn't it be better making it "liquid"?

 

I like 768px and 770px as well if I am not going to create a fluid width. I prefer to accommodate those with a resolution of 800x600 and higher.

800x600 is still commonly used, especially by older people. We should all do our best to accommodate them.

 

Well, I did once, anyway. I didn't think to try it before opening the reply.

Liquid or elastic. I just used the 768 as an example since you have a fixed width. I'm not all that fond of purely liquid, as columns of text can get too wide for comfortable reading (>65 characters wide). Liquid with some maximum width is usually a Good Thing.

The whole thrust of my arguments, here, is that there are a non-trivial number of potential visitors/customers that do view in browsers set to less than 1024px width, regardless of screen resolution, and that it is never a good idea to make any visitor unhappy with your site over something as easy to correct as fit. Unless you're just building some look-at-me ego site, you don't design for yourself or your client, you design for your client's customers. All real world sites sell something, whether its goods and services, or ideas. You don't piss off the customers.

cheers,

gary

 

1024x768 is my minimum. Below that, well they can suffer.

 

It'll be more like you'll be the one suffering, since they'll probably never return to your site, preferring your competitors instead.

Look for my first post in this thread. It contains a link to an article posted on SitePoint that explains everything about screen resolutions. Please read it.

 

my 'competition' is few and far bewtween

 

It may be now, but what about five years from now?

 

I do manly design/code for 800x600 screen resolution. Although it may not be used as much now as other resolutions, it's still important to cater for them. The only downside is; when viewing the website on a high resolution monitor, they often look very small.

 

didnt but i started a gam site and see in stats that nearly 30% of the visitors where 800x600 and some the members where moaning about having to scroll across lol

so the whole site got redesigned

 

Gary and Dan are entirely right. Screen resolution is completely irrelevant. Here I am using 1400x1050 but my browser size is actually set to 1024x768.

In my opinion, code fluid/liquid/elastic layouts and you don't have to worry about screen resolution or browser size. You put the control back with the user.

 

My screen resolution statistics:

800 x 600 : 5%
1024 x 768: 50%
1152 x 864: 7%
1280 x 800: 5%
1280 x 1024: 20%

+others (1400 x 1050: 1%, 1440 x 900: 2% ...)

 

thecounter.com has global stats on resolutions etc, and 1024x768 is most popular so if your going to build for one size it should probably be that, and if poss leave the right hand edge as non essential content in case of 800x600.

 

Ugh... you know what? I'm done. Trying to get my point that screen resolution by itself is meaningless is about as possible as squeezing blood from a turnip.

 

@ smalldog: What part of "screen size doesn't matter" don't you understand?

@ wayner: Better than nothing, but just barely. It's not that hard to fit three columns nicely into a smaller window, and allow for expansion.

@ Jem: Intelligence being directly proportional to the degree a person agrees with me, you are obviously one of the sharper tools on the bench.

@ Dan: :shrug: What can I say?

cheers,

gary

 

I create pages for 800 resolutions make my pages about 770 or 780 i myself have my screen at 1024x768 but my girl uses the 800x600 because she uses reading glasses and the 800x600 is just easier for her to read alot of my friends and family still use the 800x600 too so i think it will be awhile before i switch to designing for a larger size also i have just finished creating a pc on tv software and i can only imagine how disappointed people with a 800x600 screen would be if they opened my software and found it stretched out beyond there views so even for software and program development i use the 800x600 standard