Support for 800x600?

KevinJB · 06-21-2006, 10:52 AM

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but it looks to belong here! Anyways, I've also asked this question on five other forums. Here goes:

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!

(
http://www.kevinjb.com/2006/06/15/su...0-resolutions/ )

I'm doing a followup to this probably tomorrow or the day after that detailing other people's responces on other forums I've asked this question on.

kristeejo · 06-21-2006, 10:54 AM

I always develop towards 800x600 resolution because that is the way computers come and most people don't know to change it. You can always "stretch" your design so it accommodates everyone.

kristeejo · 06-21-2006, 10:58 AM

"800 x 600 is accepted as the most popular screen resolution currently. In fact 800 x 600 is the default screen resolution for Windows and is generally not altered by PC users. Resent large-scale studies have shown that approximately 50% of web users use 800 x 600 resolution, while 25% use the higher 1024 x 768 resolution. The 640 x 480 resolution, traditionally thought of as the default video option, is in decline."

KevinJB · 06-21-2006, 03:02 PM

Thanks for your input!

DaveyBoy · 06-21-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kristeejo

"800 x 600 is accepted as the most popular screen resolution currently. In fact 800 x 600 is the default screen resolution for Windows and is generally not altered by PC users. Resent large-scale studies have shown that approximately 50% of web users use 800 x 600 resolution, while 25% use the higher 1024 x 768 resolution. The 640 x 480 resolution, traditionally thought of as the default video option, is in decline."

Pretty sure that is out of date information. 640x480 in decline? I'd say it's dead already. I don't think 800x600 is 50% of the internet anymore either, some 80% of my visitors to my sites are on 1024x768 or above. It's probably the same right through the spectrum, times change it's just the way it is.

Personally, I usually design fixed width sites at not over 760 pixels, mainly because I think these look the best, but also to make sure that it can be viewed by the maximum number of people.

KevinJB · 06-21-2006, 04:02 PM

Yes, most of my findings indicate the same thing as you, and I'm considering doing the last thing you said (width of 765px), but with two sidebar columns of 160px each, that leaves not much for content

However, if I lower the font size, I could get aroudn that...

kristeejo · 06-21-2006, 05:18 PM

If your site is up already, check your stats. Your audience is all that matters. The stats for all of my sites are easily 80% using 800x600

**LazyJim** · 06-22-2006, 01:01 AM

We can't ignore 800x600 users yet, that's what it boild down to.

Investigate flexible layouts rather than decrease the text size.

Text size is not something you can push about till it fits, if it doesn't fit your layout was wrong from the start! Users can resize your text, which is a good thing, work with it not against it. You can even offer choices of text-size or even alternative stylesheets if you can't or wont make a sinlge one flexible enough.

Mrblogs · 06-22-2006, 01:24 AM

Also, while the "Windows Install Default" may be 800x600, many pre-packaged PCs, and also Laptops will have a higher resolution as a default, such as 1024x768, 1152x864 or 1280x1024

JamieJelly · 06-22-2006, 01:54 AM

800x600 is still widely used... not designing for them is like opening a shop but not letting anyone shorter than 5'5" in.

I don't like fluid layouts so I design fixed width sites, no more than 760px wide so it fits 800x600 perfectly.

akshay · 06-22-2006, 03:18 AM

bottom line..
800 * 600 is preferred by most of the websites.. simply beacuse they can be vieweb with out any difficulties on both 1024 * 768 and 800 * 600 resolution screens.. (and 640 * 480 screens.. no comments... but they wont be having an internet connection i'm sure..)
my website is of 760px 2..

KevinJB · 06-22-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

not designing for them is like opening a shop but not letting anyone shorter than 5'5" in.

Nice comparison!

640x480, I'm not even considering, just because that's way to small of a minority.

JuggoPop · 06-22-2006, 10:56 AM

770px fixed width for me... most of the time. and I hate double sidebars.

KevinJB · 06-22-2006, 11:43 AM

Why exactly?

JamieJelly · 06-22-2006, 11:57 AM

I don't like them either, when you are working on 760px (or 770

) having two sidebars doesnt leave a lot of space for your content.

I always find a second sidebar surplus to my requirements anyway.

JuggoPop · 06-22-2006, 11:58 AM

I don't need a calander and a poll on my sites... isn't that all second sidebars are good for.

akshay · 06-22-2006, 01:23 PM

yes.. agreed with pop!!

**LazyJim** · 06-23-2006, 01:27 AM

Fluid, elastic and fixed layouts - why do you hate them / love them?

It appears some people have a bad experience of fluid layouts and run all the way back to fixed, I don't understand why a happy medium can't be used.

Fluid: Layout expands and contracts with the window width.
Elastic: Layout scales with user text-size preferences.
Fixed: nothing changes width or height, in IE text doesn't resize, in good browsers text can overlap with large text sizes.

Although I've used fixed width in the past, I make room for text-size to expand a couple of steps without destroying the page.

Both fluid and elastic layouts would benefit from max-width settings, but IE6 and down ignore that CSS property. Lucky then that it can be achieved with CSS hacks involving JavaScript; also handy that with elastic layouts there is no requirement for max-width in IE because IE has a limited text-size range anyway!

JuggoPop · 06-23-2006, 06:48 AM

Give an example please. I'm always open for new ideas to out in basic layouts.

**LazyJim** · 06-24-2006, 02:35 AM

ok will do, give me a while though

You can't limit the text-size so it can still over-lap, but I use the rule of thumb if it can handle the full range of IE6 text-size increase/decrease OK then it's OK.

http://www.lorendil.co.uk - under development but demonstrates elastic with max-width.

http://www.alpha-matrix-design.co.uk/ - my web site is getting old, but it shows a fixed layout with resizable text, only one button has trouble when IE is on the max text-size.

I'll try and remember to make a not of the URL if I come across some more interesting examples!