Is 800 x 600 old hat?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Infant Newbie, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

    If not, what do you use?
    Thanks in advance

    Infant Newbie
    Infant Newbie, Jun 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dorward, Jun 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Infant Newbie wrote:

    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?


    Old hat? Yes, since sometime in the middle of the last decade.

    You have no idea what the current size of my browser window is (it may
    be 600px wide by 900px tall at this moment), nor is my monitor's
    resolution important.

    > If not, what do you use?


    Google for: CSS flexible design

    This is one of the early links:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/flexdesign.html

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Infant Newbie

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jun 30, 12:48 pm, "Infant Newbie" <> wrote:
    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    >
    > If not, what do you use?
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    > Infant Newbie


    There never has been a standard. Now 800 x 600 is somewhat in the
    middle of the range. Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
    1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
    range. On the other extreme, some small devices such as cell phones
    are set for much under 800 x 600. If you have an Opera browser, it can
    be set to show how your page appears on very small screens. As others
    have pointed out, you need to code your page so that at least text can
    be easily read over a very wide range of settings. Exceptions might be
    if you are writing pages for a network where everyone uses the same
    hardware.
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Infant Newbie

    Dan Guest

    On Jun 30, 4:51 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > There never has been a standard. Now 800 x 600 is somewhat in the
    > middle of the range. Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
    > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
    > range. On the other extreme, some small devices such as cell phones
    > are set for much under 800 x 600.


    Does anybody happen to know what pixel width the new iPhone uses to
    lay out pages? I took a look at one at an Apple store today, and it
    seems to use a layout with more "virtual pixels" than the display
    actually has, then lets you zoom in and out as well as rotating the
    device to switch between "portrait" and "landscape" modes.

    --
    Dan
    Dan, Jul 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Infant Newbie wrote:
    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    >
    > If not, what do you use?
    > Thanks in advance


    Well, my Treo is something like 240 x 240, while my monitor at home is
    1280 x 800 and my monitor at work is 1280 x 1024. Screen aren't even the
    same *proportions* any more, let alone any standard dimensions.
    Harlan Messinger, Jul 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Infant Newbie

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
    > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
    > range. On the other extreme,


    What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
    too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
    reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
    quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
    not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
    each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
    Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
    second of the two screenshots at:

    http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Infant Newbie

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:48:09 GMT Infant Newbie scribed:

    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?


    Sort of. Virtually all my site is thumbnail galleries so I use 800 x 600
    as the minimum at which they will display esthetically as I wish. I pretty
    much use 1280 x 1024 as the maximum for this. (I believe the overall
    median is probably 1024 x 768.)

    Note that a page must (and does) display correctly at all sizes sans
    horizontal scrollbar within the limits of a single thumb. What is
    sometimes overlooked are very large screens; I know some ppl. with 8092 x
    ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.

    --
    Neredbojias

    Once I had a little dog
    Who wagged its tail spritely.
    But it walked by the harvestor
    And now is shorter slightly.
    Neredbojias, Jul 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Infant Newbie

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <Xns995FC53072A7Enanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161>,
    Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > I know some ppl. with 8092 x
    > ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.


    Yes, a "decent" page must. In respect to 8092px, is top left
    decent or indecent, sensible or not sensible?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Infant Newbie

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Infant Newbie wrote:
    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    >
    > If not, what do you use?
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    > Infant Newbie

    You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
    and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
    and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
    window size needs to come into the argument.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    Chaddy2222, Jul 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Infant Newbie

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:46:56 GMT dorayme scribed:

    > In article
    > <Xns995FC53072A7Enanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161>,
    > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >
    >> I know some ppl. with 8092 x
    >> ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in
    >> those.

    >
    > Yes, a "decent" page must. In respect to 8092px, is top left
    > decent or indecent, sensible or not sensible?


    There are 2 ways to look at it. Some large-area "venues" (yuk yuk) are
    multiple-screen. In that case I'd say top left is preferable. However,
    for a single-screen setup I think centering is better, particularly since
    it's possible the content may be only 1 (inline) line. I usually default
    to the latter because those people capable of affording large, multi-screen
    displays could do with a little grief, anyway.

    --
    Neredbojias

    Once I had a little dog
    Who wagged its tail spritely.
    But it walked by the harvestor
    And now is shorter slightly.
    Neredbojias, Jul 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Infant Newbie

    mr rudeforth Guest

    "Chaddy2222" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Infant Newbie wrote:
    > > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    > >
    > > If not, what do you use?
    > > Thanks in advance
    > >
    > > Infant Newbie

    > You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
    > and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
    > and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
    > window size needs to come into the argument.
    > --


    Optimize Web pages for 1024x768, but use a liquid layout that stretches well
    for any resolution, from 800x600 to 1280x1024.
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html
    mr rudeforth, Jul 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Infant Newbie wrote:
    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?


    On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.

    Dani
    Daniela Duerbeck, Jul 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Daniela Duerbeck wrote:
    > Infant Newbie wrote:
    >> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

    >
    > On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.


    My desktop is 1400 x 1050, but my Firefox window is about 1050 x 1000.
    Opera's about the same. Konqueror is somewhat narrower. And all vary
    from time to time.

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Infant Newbie

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > Daniela Duerbeck wrote:
    > > Infant Newbie wrote:
    > >> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

    > >
    > > On my desktop I have 1600x1200, but on my PDA just 640x480.

    >
    > My desktop is 1400 x 1050, but my Firefox window is about 1050 x 1000.
    > Opera's about the same. Konqueror is somewhat narrower. And all vary
    > from time to time.


    My desktop is about 3800px wide and yet I still often find it
    convenient to have a browser to be just 800px wide. What is the
    rest of the screen estate doing? All sorts of things, sometimes a
    whole 1024 of it is switched off to save the earth.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Thanks All.
    "Infant Newbie" <> wrote in message
    news:f66589$prs$2surf.net...
    > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    >
    > If not, what do you use?
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    > Infant Newbie
    >
    Infant Newbie, Jul 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Infant Newbie

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    mr rudeforth wrote:
    > "Chaddy2222" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Infant Newbie wrote:
    > > > Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
    > > >
    > > > If not, what do you use?
    > > > Thanks in advance
    > > >
    > > > Infant Newbie

    > > You should design your site so the main content is visible at 800x600
    > > and lower as people useing mobile devices will have very small screens
    > > and the adverage PC user will very in what screen size the use and
    > > window size needs to come into the argument.
    > > --

    >
    > Optimize Web pages for 1024x768, but use a liquid layout that stretches well
    > for any resolution, from 800x600 to 1280x1024.
    > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html

    Yep, I have read that.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    Chaddy2222, Jul 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Infant Newbie

    SpaceGirl Guest

    On Jul 1, 1:23 am, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > > Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
    > > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
    > > range. On the other extreme,

    >
    > What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
    > too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
    > reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
    > quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
    > not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
    > each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
    > Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
    > second of the two screenshots at:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:

    19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
    30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
    19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)

    My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops, so as far as a web page
    is concerned desktop size is irrelevant.

    However... I build all my sites in Flash, and aim for full clarity at
    800x600, but they expand to fill whatever space the browser makes
    available.
    SpaceGirl, Jul 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Infant Newbie

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Jul 2, 11:59 pm, SpaceGirl <> wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 1:23 am, dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article
    > > <>,

    >
    > > cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > > > Many monitors for PCs now are set for well over
    > > > 1000 px wide, and some even add a second monitor to extend the width
    > > > range. On the other extreme,

    >
    > > What others have said. You have to be very careful not to assume
    > > too much about what arrangements users will have. As cwdjrxyz
    > > reminds here, some people can have very wide screens. On Macs for
    > > quite some time, one can organise monitors as one big screen (by
    > > not ticking the mirror option). One can have monitors on top of
    > > each each other too (Try it in Mac preferences, you folk with
    > > Macs and more than one monitor). My personal preference is the
    > > second of the two screenshots at:

    >
    > >http://tinyurl.com/35z3kp

    >
    > > --
    > > dorayme

    >
    > Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:
    >
    > 19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
    > 30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
    > 19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)
    >
    > My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops, so as far as a web page
    > is concerned desktop size is irrelevant.
    >
    > However... I build all my sites in Flash, and aim for full clarity at
    > 800x600, but they expand to fill whatever space the browser makes
    > available.

    I guess with useing flash for the entire site you would not have any
    issue with content not looking identicle in all browsers.
    It should also be noted that the new W3C web accessibility guidelines
    2.0 (it's in draft format) don't require transcriptions of video and
    stuff as much as the 1.0 guidelines did. Personally though I am not
    sure of what guidelines i'll use when the 2.0 stuff comes out, becuase
    they seam to have gone backwards with regards too CSS support, I would
    have thaught the 2.0 guidelines would have been all for CSS. Although
    for what it's werth they might as well be written in some other
    language as no-one seams to understand them anyway.
    Having said that I might have another more detailed read of them in
    the next day or so as they did not really seam that bad when I went
    over them a few weeks ago. But then I read Joe Clarks stuff on the
    subject and it kind of changed my mind again.

    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    Chaddy2222, Jul 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Infant Newbie

    Animesh K Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:48:09 GMT Infant Newbie scribed:
    >
    >> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

    >
    > Sort of. Virtually all my site is thumbnail galleries so I use 800 x 600
    > as the minimum at which they will display esthetically as I wish. I pretty
    > much use 1280 x 1024 as the maximum for this. (I believe the overall
    > median is probably 1024 x 768.)
    >
    > Note that a page must (and does) display correctly at all sizes sans
    > horizontal scrollbar within the limits of a single thumb. What is
    > sometimes overlooked are very large screens; I know some ppl. with 8092 x
    > ???? screens, and a decent page should be rendered sensibly even in those.
    >



    Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
    claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
    resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites, however.

    Screen Resolutions
    1 1024x768 50.90%
    2 1280x1024 16.81%
    3 800x600 8.93%
    4 1280x800 8.20%
    5 1152x864 3.99%
    6 1440x900 2.77%
    7 1680x1050 1.85%
    8 1280x768 1.26%
    9 1280x960 1.07%
    10 1400x1050 1.00%


    Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
    Animesh K, Jul 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. okaminer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    539
    IPGrunt
    Feb 16, 2005
  2. Peter Swanson

    Re: Website width for 800 x 600 pixel

    Peter Swanson, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    Peter Swanson
    Aug 8, 2003
  3. Peter Swanson

    Re: Website width for 800 x 600 pixel

    Peter Swanson, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    9,529
    Some One
    Aug 10, 2003
  4. Black Tractor
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,793
    (Pete Cresswell)
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. iMath
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    403
    Chris Angelico
    Sep 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page