http://www.kevinjb.com/2006/06/15/support-...00-resolutions/ Many users still use a resolution of 800 x 600, and it's often not their fault. I don't want to shut them out simply because they can't afford to upgrade to a newer computer or through some other limitation. On the other hand, I don't want to be held back because some users have older computers. I also want my website to look good, and the way I want it to as well. I'm obviously interested to hear what everybody's opinions are on this, or I wouldn't have created this thread. So talk away! If you have something important to add, leave a comment so that visitors from other forums I frequent can also see what you have to say. Thanks!
I always make my sites minium width 800pixels so i don't leave them out. But most of the time i will use a liquid layout so it still fills the page for people with 800+
So your saying you design your liquid sites so that the sidebars are big enough to hold all your text (in my case 130px each) without overlapping, in 800 x 600 windows, however when the browser window is expanded so is the site?
This discussion has occurred too many times to count. See the css-discuss Wiki, css layouts for a fairly balanced set of views. cheers, gary
I'm not asking how to build a three column layout, as I'm confident in my CSS abilities. I'm asking how I should design my site with 800 x 600 resolutions in mind.
My bad. My recollection was that liquid, elastic and fixed width design issues were also discussed. Here's an article on elastic design. Else, Google fixed width and liquid css designs. My own designs tend toward fixed and elastic, with testing as narrow as 240px for PDAs and cells. My main concern is not to allow columns to get too wide to read comfortably, i.e. no more than 60–65 characters if possible. cheers, gary
Ah, yes, that's a problem I had not yet considered! Fixed width sites are an easy solution to this, unfortunately they won't expand with the page. The max-width propery isn't supported by IE and I hate browser specific hacks...
If you just must support obsolete browsers (IE, eg.), putting an :expression value for width in a conditional comment is about the only sane work-around for max-width. I am not averse to letting IE look bad to some small degree, if the client will let me or doesn't notice. cheers, gary
I don't mind if IE users don't get extra unneccessary features of my site, so long as it's still usable (and looks 99% the same) in IE. Gives them incentive to move to other browsers (FF, Opera).
I'm still using 800px. Still have no guts to make the switch yet. I'm afraid my visitors will run away. LOL
Alright, thanks for everbodies support! I'm going to be writing the followup post to this on my blog either tomorow or the day after, depending on when I get around to it. So if you have anything to add, make sure you do it soon!
My website always contained these code. <table width="750" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center"> .... .... </table> So it has able to support both 800x600 and 1024x768
Yes KevinJB. I am a beginner for making a website. I don't have experience for a dynamical website so I only basicly write a simple code.
I usually go for something around 778px width. This looks good on most resolutions and accomodates for those on 800x600, therefore keeping everyone happy.
Ok, so it's a bit late. I finally got around to it... I posted this on a sixth forum and got tons of responces there as well. I delayed it two days because of that. It was going to go on yesterday, but I had writer's block- bad. So instead I posted this interview instead. Today, however, I found myself much more capable of writing. Without further ado: http://www.kevinjb.com/2006/06/24/800x600-...ns-and-the-web/ Let me know if I've missed anything or you disagree with anything I've said.