Width - 800 vs 1024

[GreGorGy]

http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/

So, where is popular thinking? And when you design, do you take your audience (for me it was mostly Africa, Middle East) into consideration or just jump into 1024?

 

[Drake2007]

I still do 800 but have the whole site centered. Keep in mind there are other devices besides PC's on the net these days.

 

[Nod]

I don't do web development professionally, but I normally just use percentages, e.g. 80%. Works fine for my site.

 

[stix]

i Roll with a width of 960 and a content width of 940 - and cater for mobile devices with a seperate style sheet.

 

[SilverNodashi]

I honestly don't know how accurate that website's info is anymore. In a recent study I found that about 68% runs 1024 screen resolutions, about 6% 800, and about 12% 1280.

This was done 3 months ago, so the figures could have changed a bit

 

[SilverNodashi]

Here's an interesting one. According to this page,
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp higher than 1024 takes 53%, while 1024x768 36%, and 800x600 only 4%

 

[GreGorGy]

I don't do web development professionally, but I normally just use percentages, e.g. 80%. Works fine for my site.

Fluid can work for many sites (informational esp) but when one has to design something eye-catching and constant (corporate identities often demand consistency) it becomes a bit of a nightmare.

I am considering going with what stix said (960) for an upcoming project where I know that most of the visitors (if not all) come from an affluent background and should have higher resolutions / bigger monitors but...

screen.width != browser width. I know I do not browse "maximised" and I am not the only one. SoftDux: did your study consider screen width or browser width? There is a vast difference...

 

[SilverNodashi]

GregorGy, I know there's a big difference. Our study was purely on screen resolution, since the application we did the study on was in full screen. But, even though a client's browser isn't full screen, if he has the monitor real estate to enlarge his browser more than 800x600, then there's no excuse why he can't see a website properly.

Sure, not everyone has their browsers to full screen, but that's not a limiting factor and they can enlarge it. Yet, that still doesn't mean you should limit your website to 800 pixels wide. It' just plain awful on the bigger monitors. One should rather, if you absolutely insist on limiting your website width, have different style sheets for different size browsers.

 

[stix]

I am no fan of fluid sites mainly because its hard to maintian consistency in look and feel - and as previously mentioned it can be hell when a client look at a site on one machine and then another and its constantly changing the look based on the width.

So yea i am a fan of fixed width - but i also see no need to provide multiple CSS files to meet the various screen widths - my experience is that 960 delivers well enough on all resolutions maybe bar someone with a 24" monitor - then its starts looking a little small centered but that effect can also be countered with your main background image.

 

[midrange]

960.

 

[InnerException]

I usually use 1000, leaving 24px for the scrollbar (if any). Is there a reason for some of you leaving an extra 40px available, or is it just as a extra safety margin?

 

[stix]

I use a css framework for rapid development - its default width comes in at 960, but it can be generated to any size necessary

 

[midrange]

I usually use 1000, leaving 24px for the scrollbar (if any). Is there a reason for some of you leaving an extra 40px available, or is it just as a extra safety margin?

960 is the safest across all the browsers.

 

[semiautomatix]

i Roll with a width of 960 and a content width of 940 - and cater for mobile devices with a seperate style sheet.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

EDIT: looks like 960x500 will get you about 90% of all users.

 

[guest2013-1]

I tend not to look at those but I look at what PC's comes out as a standard graphics card as well as new operating systems on the market.

Based on that I decide what the minimum width would be. most people don't **** with their resolution settings (that's why i had so many people complain back in 2001/2002 that 800x600 was way to small for them and that they preferred 640x480)

But as technology and standards grow in OS/Hardware (cheap entry level hardware) you can adjust your designs according to those trends. I usually look at the past 3 years or so even though people use their PC for more than that at a time, most of the families tend to upgrade with the kids wanting to play games and the PC being too slow to do their school work/projects on etc

 

[Raithlin]

I tend not to look at those but I look at what PC's comes out as a standard graphics card as well as new operating systems on the market.

Based on that I decide what the minimum width would be. most people don't **** with their resolution settings (that's why i had so many people complain back in 2001/2002 that 800x600 was way to small for them and that they preferred 640x480)

But as technology and standards grow in OS/Hardware (cheap entry level hardware) you can adjust your designs according to those trends. I usually look at the past 3 years or so even though people use their PC for more than that at a time, most of the families tend to upgrade with the kids wanting to play games and the PC being too slow to do their school work/projects on etc

Nice way of looking at it.

I prefer fluid designs with minimum widths so it doesn't screw up the design. I like what I've read though...

 

[Chelle]

Consistently over the last 12 months according to my google analytics stats only around 2% of visitors have screen resolutions of 800 x 600.

More and more people now have resolutions greater than 1280 (in fact last months stats show that over 40% of visitors have 1280 and greater).

For now, until there are less than 10% of users using 1024, I build my sites for 1024 - i.e. with a page width from about 960 to 998.

 

[GreGorGy]

Consistently over the last 12 months according to my google analytics stats only around 2% of visitors have screen resolutions of 800 x 600.

More and more people now have resolutions greater than 1280 (in fact last months stats show that over 40% of visitors have 1280 and greater).

For now, until there are less than 10% of users using 1024, I build my sites for 1024 - i.e. with a page width from about 960 to 998.

Except (as said above) screen res != browser width. And from what I can gather, those google analytics are screen. I have in the mean time developed a little javascript to help me capture browser window widths which I will run on my sites for a while to get a real picture. I suspect OS and browser type may play a role here too...

 

[InnerException]

960 is the safest across all the browsers.

Ok, might as well use that in future then. Not like 40px less will make much of a difference.

 

[Chelle]

Except (as said above) screen res != browser width. And from what I can gather, those google analytics are screen. I have in the mean time developed a little javascript to help me capture browser window widths which I will run on my sites for a while to get a real picture.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.
What do you think the reason would be that people would have their browser widths set to something other than the normal default width?
It's not something I have given consideration to before this.