Is 800 x 600 old hat?

[Infant Newbie]

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

If not, what do you use?
Thanks in advance

Infant Newbie

 

[David Dorward]

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

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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

 

[cwdjrxyz]

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.

 

[Dan]

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.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

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.

 

[dorayme]

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

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[dorayme]

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?

 

[Chaddy2222]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[mr rudeforth]

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

 

[Daniela Duerbeck]

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

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

Dani

 

[Blinky the Shark]

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.

 

[dorayme]

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.

 

[Infant Newbie]

Thanks All.

 

[Chaddy2222]

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.

 

[SpaceGirl]

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

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.

 

[Chaddy2222]

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.

 

[Animesh K]

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