Screen Resolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Sayers
  • Start date Start date

What Resolution do you use???

  • 800 x 600

    Votes: 9 14.1%

  • 1024 x 768

    Votes: 33 51.6%

  • 1152 x 864

    Votes: 8 12.5%

  • 1280 x 960

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • 1280 x 1024

    Votes: 11 17.2%

  • 1600 x 1024

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • other

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Total voters
    64
John Sayers

John Sayers

Solar Power!!
Creating web pages can be a drag because of the different screen resolutions people use.

So what do you use??

cheers
john
 
John,

When I create webpages I do them thinking for everyone: so my pages fit on a 640x480 resolution. If you want everyone who has a computer to be able to view your pages correctly, you *must* do this. I use tables and I set their width in PIXELS. So everyone sees the same page. If you have a computer screen with a "1600x 1024" screenset, the monitor is normally able to handle that resolution so the page will appear the same size as someone who looks at it on screen that can only handle 640x480... (Don't know if you get my point here)

My two cents,
Beathoven
 
1024 is definately becoming the new norm. I know that there's at least one group who does studies on this sort of thing...can't remember who...

I agree that you should try to design a site that will display correctly on as many systems as possible, but I don't feel bad if people at 640x480 get short changed a little. For one thing, they're USED to it. But the general rule is that smaller is better. For instance, I browse with windows that typically fill maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of my screen, so that's somewhere in the 800x600 range...i don't like it when people make me scroll all over hell or expect me to go full screen when I'm trying to manage 15 windows at a time.

Slackmaster 2000
 
I design pages so they are best viewable in 1024x768 and above, but I make sure they are also displayed OK in 800x600. I do not check themn in 640x480, because it's pretty pointless. Most ppl use 1024x768, so if your design looks ok on 640x480 it will look VERY small on 1024x768 and VERY VERY small on 1280x1024. Just try it.

Keijo
 
Warlock you must keep in mind that if you have a 1280x1024 resolution, you have the Monitor to handle it... (If you have 17" monitor and you have a 1280x1024 resolution things will look pretty small anyway...) So even if you have a bigger resolution, you technicaly have a bigger monitor so you will see about the same thing as the person who can only handle 800x600...

It's pretty tough to explain, and to make it worse, I naturally speak french so... :)

Peace,
Beathoven
 
For my web design I typically go for 800 x 600; we have a lot of laptop users.
 
Whenever I design pages, I always set the width and length of tables using PERCENTAGES. Unless I know I want a certain image to take up so many percent of the screen, I always use pixel values when dealing with images and objects. But using percentages on tables causes the page to expand to the full size of the screen, and the images will space out accordingly (I design for 800 by 600 mostly).
 
At my company we are moving many of our in-house apps to browser based. We presume a screen resolution of 800x600 because we have a lot of worker drones using 15" monitors, and 1024 is pretty small reading on a 15". We are gradually moving everyone to 19" monitors but it will take awhile because of cutbacks.

Personally I change resolutions on my home machines (19" monitors) constantly, 800 when looking at photos, 1024 ocassionally, 1152 is my standard, and 1280 when running Cakewalk. I consider 1600 ridiculous on anything smaller than a 21" monitor.
 
Thanks for that guys. I'm like Milkman in that I use percenatges for tables. but make sure it fits on 800. Don't worry about 640 as they obviously don't worry either :)

My counter on my site last year said that I was getting more than 50% of hits 1024 and above and the poll seems to confirm that.

cheers
John
 
Slackmaster2K said:
1024 is definately becoming the new norm. I know that there's at least one group who does studies on this sort of thing...can't remember who...

I agree that you should try to design a site that will display correctly on as many systems as possible, but I don't feel bad if people at 640x480 get short changed a little. For one thing, they're USED to it. But the general rule is that smaller is better. For instance, I browse with windows that typically fill maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of my screen, so that's somewhere in the 800x600 range...i don't like it when people make me scroll all over hell or expect me to go full screen when I'm trying to manage 15 windows at a time.

Slackmaster 2000
Click to expand...

maybe you know this already, but check out Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org). You can use tabbed browsing which you can then have a maximised browser window with a thin bar at the top with all page titles so you can easily flip back and forth. Another awesome feature is the popup and popunder blocking as well as other extensive preferences. There are two files which you can go in with notepad and stop individual javascript commands. If any of you are reading this on a Mac you can use Mozilla on that as well.

I said 1280x1024 but I have to say that any page that doesn't work on 800x600 and above equally is poorly designed.
 
hey guys. What's also important is what's the real usable area, that means without the menu bar and icon bar of explorer/netscape at the top, and the small task bar at the bottom.

Here's a nice program to play around with this:
http://www.mioplanet.com/products/pixelruler/

Cheers, Andrés
 
The worst thing is those damn frames. I hate the way they don't resize very well. Even though many people use bigger resolutions they don't always open the window to full screen if they are 'multi-tasking' or hiding the site from their boss. I wish all websites fit into the bottom half of the screen well so they can neatly fit over the outlook preview window and it looks like you're reading your email.
 
this is the downside to the friggin' search engine.......:D
 
...Damn, it's been a year (the thread). You know, I've never intended change my resolution even if I have changed my monitor :D Always stick with 800X600... Guess I'll try it sometime... ;)
 
Tex, unless you're running some really good virus/firewall apps, I'd kill the Outlook preview window - the preview window opens your mail as soon as you single-click on it, and before you get a chance to delete it. That thing's dangerous.
 
I use the 600x800 to surf the web because it is easier on the eyes. On my DAW I use higher resolution so I can see more, and because if I don't I lose the last quarter of the screen which has some important buttons on it.
 
I design for 800x600, the percentage of people using 600x480 now is very slim, and will die out very soon as new monitors and videocards dont even have an option for this. If the page has a set width, as a general rule I make it 758, but if its percentage, it can be whatever you want.
 
From my web design classes in school, it says design web pages in 640 X 480, but that when 15" monitors were the norn (2+ years ago) . Now everything is bigger and better. The norm now would be 800 X 600, But even if you design it for 1024 X 768. Who typically will look at your web site, is it someone who will pobably have more up to date technology or someone who will know nothing about computers.

Frames -- A big no-no for web site design.

Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top