The endless argument over best resolution is one that every Tom, Dick and Vera has something to say about and will agrue – until you stab yourself in the brain with a pencil – that their way is the only way. You’d think we’d all had enough of debtating this and move onto something half interesting – but oh no, it’s back and this time it’s just as boring and stupid as before. Surfice to say in the last 24 hours I have now been party to no fewer than 4 conversations about what screen resolution you should use when designing websites. I thought Sunday was meant to be a day of peace not a day of poking me with silly percentage statistics and dragging out the stinky rotten resolution beast from it’s dark hole.
My thoughts are very specific on whether you should ignore 800 x 600 users or not. Here are some short rules to work out what screen resolution you should use. If you answer any of these as YES then go ahead use whatever resolution your whim or mate down the pub who knows everything there is to know about web design suggests.
- Do you want to eliminate any precentage of your possible market?
- Have you got psychic vision so you know what every person in every country is browsing using?
- Have you written a script to go on the page that will make sure all browsers anyone uses are being used in maximum window size on the screen and as a result annoy everyone that goes near your site?
- Are you targetting a market that 100% only use a specific resolution and can you prove this in writing with a PowerPoint presentation and pie charts done in Word?
- Have you been asleep for the last decade and heard nothing about web standards and accessibilitiy?
- Do you like your client to loose business or loose business yourself?
Let the battle of resolution aggression begin again – I’m off back to my Sunday until I get poked again by the resolution stick.
Pingback: Bright Meadow » Sunday Roast: wiggle by default
Amen to that post. I would also like to add my own pet hate – people who insist on STILL using letterbox websites because they are under the misguided notion that ‘people don’t scroll’ and so feel the need to cram as much information into the smallest space possible – thereby making it impossible to read at higher resolution. So it works both ways…
I think the scrolling is a myth now. I have great trouble in recalling any site recently where you don’t have to scroll – although I have recently had the ‘we don’t want it to scroll’ client conversation. Postage stamp websites are the most unattractive in the world unless done well.
Clients always need some educaton and designers not agreeing or all saying different things doesn’t help them. I have lost count of the amount of times I have ended up debating with clients over what another past designer suggested. We don’t help ourselves arguing about issues and it illustrates a further need for a standardisation of practices. It’s a problem of subjectivity though and not one that is easy to use. If we stopped arguing about the obvious stuff would be a good start though.
Cheers! 800×600 is still the way to go unless you’re savvy enough to start using alternate stylesheets for different resolutions.
Check out what Phu Ly did with his site using alternate stylesheets. Pretty neat stuff.
http://ifelse.co.uk/archives/2006/04/23/css-rebooted/
It all seems such a mute point when there are such great ways of supporting all, I agree. To me, it brings to mind the age old why ignore Internet Explorer when you can the same.
One problem is the mass of CSS conditional statements that would result. Then again, that is hardly a great down point. I am thinking of using that same option myself in some work I am doing and linking it with the techniques to gracefully redirect for Internet Explorer. The other problem is that people seem to lazy to do this as the shouting about ignoring 800 x 600 is getting louder amongst a lot of designers.
My Palm has is only 320px wide ;)
Spam karma for wordpress so thought that ‘palm’ was something different… I am choosing to view it as the digital one ;) You are right though – mobile may be a bit slow to be uptaken than everyone thought but it’s there and has to now be considered. I am aware of things through viewing on my blackberry.
Actually the mobile factor is something that bugs me since a while already.
PalmOS on my Clie, uses Netfront without Java (minor js supported). Amazingly supports CSS in a great way, but still what do to?
Make a no-css stylesheet for mobile devices or a no-column style?
I started my site which has a overwhelming designations and it was such a wel designed piece.But eventually when time passed many of latest good looking then it comes over then it remained as a piece of shit to me.But ideas are always there to help us,so now its my turn again to blast!!!
I’m in the process of designing my site. It is not ready yet though.
I would like to use coding for the yawn – 800 x 600.
I’m not heavy designer but get the job done for my needs. Can anyone post a quick way to assure this rez for those who will visit with 14″ mons? I am using Tables on everything.
Thanks
@kimberly : Ok, you raised a few issues with what you asked.
1. Why tables? Tables are not evil – they don’t hang out in dark alleys and mug people… but they aren’t being used correctly if you use for the site structure. Yes, CSS and XHTML takes a bit of a head switch but it’s so worth it. Tables = tabular data and actually never were intended for site structures.
2. It doesn’t matter what SIZE the screen is it’s RESOLUTION. I could have a 15 inch monitor at a higher resolution than a 17 – not ccommon but I could. 800 x 600 is the bare minimum of ANY monitors and has been for quite some time, hence the using it as lowes RESOLUTION. This is RESOLUTION not SIZE though. A monitor’s ‘real estate’ can change – how many people have their browser open the total size of their screen? It can also have bookmark bars and other side panels that make the browser size smaller.
Just use 800 as the bottom size and you can even do fluid designs that can adapt depending on resolution, it’s about catering for the lowest user on your site. Hope this has helped.
800×600 provides an internationalization hinks that can be a part of this subject which peoples are talking about right now.
…just sneaking in here with the resolution stick. But what the heck. It’s Saturday. When my DH insisted on building his own web site for a NP he is starting, I told him to follow three rules. Design it at 800 x 600. Use CSS and XHTML. Accessibility is a must.
So what does this total n00b come up with? A design he calls “shrink to fit”. I kid you not. I was able to see ALL content in resized browsers at different resolutions and even in his cell phone. For a while it was even AAA compliant, but then he decided he really wanted to add some features that knocked it back out of that ballpark. And it is his first web site ever.
I am so PROUD!
[caveat] we have not had the opportunity lately to check for a certain set of XP-IE7 bugs first hand, but the last time we looked they were solved.[end caveat]
I’m not saying I have the answer, but your argument is too simplistic.
“Do you want to eliminate any percentage of your target market?” Well then, better make it 640 x 480 (there are some computers out there at that resolution, though we’re talking decimal points.)
As with anything related to money – like it or not design commercially is – you have to go for the best target. Whilst yes in an ideal world even the smallest percentage or decimal palce would be considered, there does have to be a cut off point. I am saying that whilst the cut of point has to be made you have to see the market balance ie; still for the 800 x 600 it’s high enough to warrant consideration. However, this is changing and none of this is a golden route map for the future seeing as I don’t have a magic 8 ball and the web is evolving as it should. You have to know your market and if they determine the resolution so be it, knowing your market is key. I have done some 1024 designs but only a) on client briefing and request and b) when client knows their market so decides it (sort of a linking to a).
I suspect that’s thereason general public want to read blog….Internet visitors generally create blogs to declare themselves or their secret views. Blog grant them same matter on the monitor screen what they specifically needed,so as the above stuffs declared it.
Have you been asleep for the last decade and heard nothing about web standards and accessibilitiy?
User should be able to use View Text Size
when web sites like yours use teeny tiny type…
The other problem is that people seem to lazy to do this as the shouting about ignoring 800 x 600 is getting louder amongst a lot of designers.
Hmmmm. I read this with interest and by the end I was beginning to feel guilty that the question you yawn at was even on my mind. But while the sarcasm was still dripping from your thoughts, I read what you had said again but substituted 640×480 for 800×600. There are far more people than we care to admit running at that lowly res or using button-bar-laden browsers. It was then that I realized my question is valid. Yes, it’s a question that’s repeated a lot. But why not? As technology advances we hope as designers we can eventually advance with it. So all you needed to say was that you prefer to design with 800×600 as the lowest common denominator and for the 6 reasons you mentioned. No need to look down on those who ask. And the yawning? Maybe it’s caused by the lack of oxygen way up there on that high altitude perch you have placed yourself.
All I can add after reading all these comments pertaining to the 800×600 debate is: If everyone would just get rid of and quit using IE, we would all be much better off and then no one would be talking about this kind of stuff!
I can dream can’t I?
Your comments would be more credible if this site fitted a 800 pixel wide screen. It doesn’t.