Screen Resolution: What setting do webmasters use?

[Toby]

When I build pages for general public viewing I make sure they're viewable at 800 x 600. But, I've just started on a project that will be aimed specifically at adult webmasters, and I have a hunch that as a group the vast majority of us are using 1024 x 768 or higher. Am I right? What setting do you use for surfin' the web?

[swedguy]

I use 1024 x 768 :)

[MrMaryLou]

For just my own surfing 1280 X 1024 but for reviewing I use 800x600

[HC-Majick]

1280 x 1024 on a 21 inch monitor on both my main computer at home and at work, but i do have a 15 inch monitor hooked up to a server set to 800 x 600 that i check my sites on.

[Greenguy]

I review at 800 wide but everything else is 1280x1024

[ladydesigner]

I use 800x600 on a 17'' monitor but my husband surfs the web at 1152x864 and insists that I should build sites for this resolution. I'm not convinced though.

[Cleo]

When I'm in my office I use a two monitor setup, a 21" CRT and my laptop's 17" LCD. They are set for 1024x768 and 1152x720.

That said I do not keep my browser window maximized and really, really hate it when a web page is designed too wide for the width that I keep my normal browser window which is about 850 pixels wide maximum.

[MrYum]

19 inch flat screen here...native is 1280x1024...which is where I'm at most of the time.

When building, I resize every page to make sure it looks decent at the most common sizes. Since I work in FF almost exclusively and have the developer tools installed...I can switch to 800x600...or 1024x768 at the click of a button :)

That said, pages that are specifically for webmasters, 1024x768 becomes the primary choice with 800x600 secondary.

[cd34]

1280x800 for me, but, the browser with the bookmark column takes up enough that it leaves me with probably 800x600

[Wenchy]

1024 x 768 here, but I build all public-consumption pages at 800 x 600.

I need those FF tools MrYum was talking about (hiya sweetie! ;) ) so I can eliminate Exploder as a measuring stick.

[Useless]

I've never used anything except 800x600. You can't make me change. I don't even understand the point of larger screen resolutions. Oh great, you can fit more shit on the page, but I can't read the fucking print. :D Nice.

[Cleo]

Torn was here and he showed me FoxyAngel's site on it. It looked like a postage stamp on his screen. I did change the members area to be center justified so it wouldn't be just up in the top left corner after I saw it.

I'm guessing that Torn has Kriptanite vision and can probably also see though walls to be able to use a screen like that.

[MrYum]

I need those FF tools MrYum was talking about (hiya sweetie! ;) ) so I can eliminate Exploder as a measuring stick.
Hey there gorgeous!

Hit me up...you can have my tools anytime...hubba hubba :D

[Head Boy]

I'm another one at 1024 most of the time. :)

[ecchi]

If your doing a WM site I would definitely go for 800 x 600 Most of the more professional webmasters I know (i.e. those who do it as a living, rather than as a hobby or an extra income) would assume you don't know enough to set it at the lowest common denominator if you set it higher. And from that they would assume you are a newbie and that there is no point in looking at any webmaster site you create because they would assume you don't yet know enough about the business to run a webmaster site.

[Fido]

I use always 1280x1024. For reviewing I use 800px IFRAME, while the rest of the screen shows me other info.

[grzepa]

Im at 1024 also...

[Torn Rose]

your all blind

1400x1050

[Cleo]

your all blind

1400x1050
You didn't mention that this is on a laptop's screen. |shocking|

[Lemmy]

1280x1024. I check everything I build in 800x600 before submitting.

[Mr. Blue]

1280x1024

Don't mind pages made for 800 x 600, but can't stand pages that don't take that little extra time to make the page look okay at higher res...like centering the damn table would be nice, also taking 1 minute to make up a background tile so you don't just see white space. I won't use / buy off of a site that's 800 x 600 that don't take those two little courtesy steps.

[Useless]

I won't use / buy off of a site that's 800 x 600 that don't take those two little courtesy steps.
That's the same way I feel about pages built for higher resolutions, as I view strictly at 8x6. At least you high res folks don't have to deal with two separate scroll bars.

[Greenguy]

your all blind...MY all blind?

[ecchi]

Mr. Blue raises a good point. I constantly hear jokes and snide comments from other webmasters about webmasters who do not make their pages 800X600 friendly, but never about webmasters who do not make their page friendly to higher resolutions. Why is this?

I know that there is a difference in that an 800X600 site is as easy to read on a higher resolution as it is at 800X600, whereas a page optimised for higher resolution is a bastard to read on a lower resolution. But most of the comments I here about webmasters who do not make a site 800X600 friendly are along the lines of "newbie, doesn't know enough to make his site look good to all surfers", and surly that applies equally well to people whose site does not look good at the higher resolutions as well. After all, as Mr. Blue points out, in most cases all that is needed are a 'bgcolor' in the body tag and center tags around a table. Or in some cases, just making the table width 100%.

[stuveltje]

i use still the 800x600 i have tried 1024 but all is sooooooo smallll , i will stick with the 800x600

[Joe]

your all blind

1400x1050

Pssshh... I think I'm on the highest resolution of everyone else:

1680x1050

I have fairly good vision, and have no trouble seeing fonts. The downside is reviewing sites in a non-native 800x600 resolution.

[Joe]

i use still the 800x600 i have tried 1024 but all is sooooooo smallll , i will stick with the 800x600

You think 1024x768 is small? |shocking|

[Mr. Blue]

Pssshh... I think I'm on the highest resolution of everyone else:

1680x1050

What video card? God that's sounds like a great resolution...I hit the highest res. my video card could go to.

[Cleo]

New 17" Powerbook and the G5 towers support 2560x1600 on Apple's 30" monitor.
http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

[RawAlex]

My editing system is a two screener (actually 3 if you count the video monitor) so on that one I am running 2560 X 1024 over to screens, and my main system here runs 1024 X 768. I could run higher resolution, but I find it just leads to me using bigger fonts and graphcis on pages... most of my other systems are 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600 depending on age and monitor size.

I think that it will soon be time to start accepting sites fitting into 1024 X 768 screens, as less and less people have the 800 X 600 as standard anymore.

Alex

[ecchi]

RE: "as less and less people have the 800 X 600 as standard anymore" My stats don't show much of a drop off. Although most people have better monitors, the largest share seems to go to 800X600.

[Cleo]

How many actually surf with the browser set to full screen?

I know that I don't. Even if I did I would still have my Dock taking up part of the screen.

[RawAlex]

Here is someone who did some pretty intensive hashing of info on the subject - however, their sample was a bit small (under 1k)

http://evolt.org/article/Real_World_Browser_Size_Stats_Pat_II/20/2297/

The number of 800 X 600 browsers has been overtaken by the number large, the whole thing has tipped over (probably last two years) to bigger sizes. As people upgrade pcs and move to newer systems, I think you will see this number move up.

Also, LCD screens tend to be a bit sharper than tubes, and most of them have a native bet mode around 1200 X 800 or so. My LCD 17 inch monitor can display upwards to 2500 X 1600 very sharp, but I can't read it! :)

Just when you thought you had enough of screen resolution issues, remember that your TV is being revamped too! It isn't getting better, it's getting worse! :)

Alex

[RawAlex]

You could also get the "google answer" on the subject:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=341264

Again, they are seeing the trend to higher resolutions (640 X 480, example, is all but extinct) but that 800 X 600 is still the seeming default for design.

Alex

[Jel]

1024x768 here, browse and work at full screen then check my sites at 800 and adjust if needed :)

[Toby]

Interesting reading. While my initial thoughts about a much higher percantage of webmasters using higher resolutions appears to be correct there have been a couple of things mentioned that I had not considered. Browsing at less than full screen size, and other programs or utilities occupying portions of the screen.

What this all tells me is that I can design the site for optimum use at 1024x768, but it needs to still be viewable at 800x600 without having a horizontal scroll.

[GeorgeTH]

1152 x 864 is mine... Any bigger and I need my reading glasses for everything. But since I have a colour monitor (~1990) I have never used anything under 1024x768.

I'm still designing for 800 width, though (stupid as it seems).

[Cleo]

Interesting reading. While my initial thoughts about a much higher percantage of webmasters using higher resolutions appears to be correct there have been a couple of things mentioned that I had not considered. Browsing at less than full screen size, and other programs or utilities occupying portions of the screen.

What this all tells me is that I can design the site for optimum use at 1024x768, but it needs to still be viewable at 800x600 without having a horizontal scroll.
Bingo :)

[Mr. Blue]

Bingo :)

Was his name-o

[Jeremiasz]

1280x1024 19" .. until I started to make free sites I used 1600x1200 :>

[Sid]

1152x864 on my desktop, but check pages in 1024 (I do check in 800, too but wow that just hurts my eyes)

[tickler]

your all blind

1400x1050
I can run 1600x1200 on my 22" when I am doing developement with multiple helper windows open. Nice to be able to move them out of the active design space.

Generally I run 1024x768 with multiple browser windows set around 800x600. Then you hit all these sites that resize to maxWidth/maxHeight and they have no ideal what their sites look like at those resoulutions!

[Fonz]

1280x1024 the first 8 hours of the day
1152 x 864 the next 7 hours of the day

[alvarez]

I vote for 800x600 :)

[flyeruk]

I do everything at 800 x 600, surf, review and build :-)

[Kath]

Interesting reading. While my initial thoughts about a much higher percantage of webmasters using higher resolutions appears to be correct there have been a couple of things mentioned that I had not considered. Browsing at less than full screen size, and other programs or utilities occupying portions of the screen.

What this all tells me is that I can design the site for optimum use at 1024x768, but it needs to still be viewable at 800x600 without having a horizontal scroll.

Yep, that's what I've found too. I view @ full screen, always have - and I have mine set to 1024x768. I didn't realize that many webmasters do NOT view @ full screen so they can layer their windows. But when we did some site re-designs awhile ago for our message board, webmaster blog and main dot-com for the magazine, we received a lot of - well, let's just call them "constructively critical" emails and notes from webmasters. I was even told that sites should be designed @ about 750 width to completely rule out "threat" of a sideways scroll - which I guess really pisses off these small-screener folks.

But now these are WEBMASTERS so I wonder if we are designing for surfers, if the resolution needs to be different. I hear a lot of complaints on my surfer sites from people saying that an 800x600 design is "too big" and that they would prefer it be designed for the 1024 majority... just not sure which way to go, and I don't like how the 100% thing messes with your design. I want it to look the way *I* want it to look, you know?

|shocking|

[EmporerEJ]

19 inch flat screen here...native is 1280x1024...which is where I'm at most of the time.

When building, I resize every page to make sure it looks decent at the most common sizes. Since I work in FF almost exclusively and have the developer tools installed...I can switch to 800x600...or 1024x768 at the click of a button :)

That said, pages that are specifically for webmasters, 1024x768 becomes the primary choice with 800x600 secondary.

As I told Toby in another forum I run 1600 X 1200, but I use FrontPage which also has the built in previewer that allows you to lauch whatever browser you want in whatever size to see how it appears.
It's very handy.

[ecchi]

RE : "sites should be designed @ about 750 width" This is to allow for the scroll bars and window frames. By the same token, if you are designing for 1280x1024, the screen should be no wider than about 1230 etc.

If you are designing your own website then use whatever resolution you like, it is your site after all. But if you are designing for someone else and they don't specify resolution, ALWAYS keep screen width below 750 or be ready for the work to dry up when clients with 800X600 screens start to put the word round that you are no good. It will make no difference to them that you designed a kick ass site, if their clients cannot see the entire thing on their crappy old monitors then they are going to start putting the wrong kind of word out about you.

[EmporerEJ]

You know, thinking on this topic, But not necessarily Toby's topic, it occurs to me that when I was a wee nipper on the web, Cnet had some "training" course that suggested the best way to design was for a maximum of 700 Pixels.
'course that was quite a while ago......

Back in the "old days" of the web.....Which I know Toby, who is MUCH older than me, remembers......
|bananna|

[Toby]

...Back in the "old days" of the web.....Which I know Toby, who is MUCH older than me, remembers......
|bananna|Hey now, not that much older, but I *was* there when Al Gore invented the Internet. |loony|

[MrYum]

As I told Toby in another forum I run 1600 X 1200, but I use FrontPage which also has the built in previewer that allows you to lauch whatever browser you want in whatever size to see how it appears.
It's very handy.
Yep Emporer...when I look at how much more productive I am using FF as opposed to IE, FF wins hands down everytime :)

The developer tools extension is one of the best addons for folks in our biz. Also, has a single click to view source code in a new tab...VERY handy for site reviews |headbang|

[digifan]

Bingo :)
I agree 100%... it is always easier on the eye so the surfer can focus on the content.

[EmporerEJ]

Hey now, not that much older, but I *was* there when Al Gore invented the Internet. |loony|

I was running a lowly BBS called "Sex2CStore" when Al Gore invented the internet and the great light of the world turned on.....

:D

[EmporerEJ]

Yep Emporer...when I look at how much more productive I am using FF as opposed to IE, FF wins hands down everytime :)

The developer tools extension is one of the best addons for folks in our biz. Also, has a single click to view source code in a new tab...VERY handy for site reviews |headbang|


Hmmmm.......FP has that too.....and split screen.......
en-Garde!

|swordfigh

[EmporerEJ]

Pssshh... I think I'm on the highest resolution of everyone else:

1680x1050

I have fairly good vision, and have no trouble seeing fonts. The downside is reviewing sites in a non-native 800x600 resolution.

Nope, I got you beat overall....
1600 X 1200 (Count d'em pixels!)

Naaa naa!

|mml|

[MrYum]

Hmmmm.......FP has that too.....and split screen.......
en-Garde!

|swordfigh
Hmmm...ok...it's ON!

Does FP have an option to validate html and css???

Back atcha there big guy!
|swordfigh

[spazlabz]

1280x1024 because i used adobe premier pro and I honestly think that any lower resolution and I would not be able to view the work area with any efficiency at all

[EmporerEJ]

Hmmm...ok...it's ON!

Does FP have an option to validate html and css???

Back atcha there big guy!
|swordfigh


If I understand what you mean by "validate" I will give you a cautious "yes,"

(And watch for the fleche attack.....)
|swordfigh

[binxgook]

8x6 myself.

[MrYum]

If I understand what you mean by "validate" I will give you a cautious "yes,"

(And watch for the fleche attack.....)
|swordfigh
Damn, thought I'd get ya on that one! lol

It just runs the page through a few online validators to verify the code is tight and error free :)

Aw...fuck it...throw caution to the wind...attack! |swordfigh

OUCH! Poked myself with this damn thing! LMAO!

[Cleo]

1280x1024 because i used adobe premier pro and I honestly think that any lower resolution and I would not be able to view the work area with any efficiency at all
I have the same problem with Final Cut Pro. Even with two monitors I find myself wishing for more desktop space. Prices on large LCDs like in the 30" size are coming down, wishing, wishing…

Spreadsheets are evil too.

But it still doesn't matter with web sites since I keep my browser window about the same size as a magazine page would be.

[EmporerEJ]

Damn, thought I'd get ya on that one! lol

It just runs the page through a few online validators to verify the code is tight and error free :)

Aw...fuck it...throw caution to the wind...attack! |swordfigh

OUCH! Poked myself with this damn thing! LMAO!

How about we call it a draw?
I think it's a matter of personal preference anyhow, and I'm too damn old to learn something new.
:D

[bdld]

i'm at 1280x768, gotta love widescreens

[Rui]

I use 1280x1024, but I'm looking forward into raising my desktop workspace, this is clearly not enough for me :)

[Jeremiasz]

yeah need more space for dreamwaever and photoshop ;)

[Blnt]

1280x1024@19" monitor. Any lower resolution on my 19" looks preety bad for me. I build, submit and watch the sites in this res, and I personally think that this is kind of standart these times. I know that a lot of people still use 800x600 or 1024x768 (in work? :D).
Btw, I know a lot of different peole and the lower res they use is 1024x768.

[Mr. Blue]

Prices on large LCDs like in the 30" size are coming down, wishing, wishing….

That's on my wishlist...I saw a nice 30" LCD at a clients office...I worked on that comp all day long and had withdrawl when I went home and had my 17" waiting for me.

[Cleo]

That's on my wishlist...I saw a nice 30" LCD at a clients office...I worked on that comp all day long and had withdrawl when I went home and had my 17" waiting for me.
My rich neighbor has one. He doesn't have any programs installed on the computer except for the iApps and stuff that comes with a Mac so it's had to really get a feel for what can be done with this much desktop space.

Most web sites, including my stuff, look ridiculous on it if you surf with the browser full screen.

He uses everything full screen, even something like an open/save dialog.

[Mr. Blue]

My rich neighbor has one. He doesn't have any programs installed on the computer except for the iApps and stuff that comes with a Mac so it's had to really get a feel for what can be done with this much desktop space.

Most web sites, including my stuff, look ridiculous on it if you surf with the browser full screen.

He uses everything full screen, even something like an open/save dialog.

The first thing I did was check my webpages on it, wasn't easy as they had porn sites blocked, but I just slipped around using a proxy. 30" make webpages look ridiculous.

omg though, did photoshop look sexy at that size. Usually I have my tools panels half minimized or pushed off to the side...a little off the screen. 30" you could keep every tool panel open. I swear I haven't had lust like that over anything in awhile.

Sad thing is that the person I was working for...just used the computer to check email and browse the web. *sigh*

[Cleo]

My neighbor surfs porn sites, grabs images, adds them to iPhoto, and changes his desktop picture a lot, nothing else. It's painful to see this hardware not being utilized.

[Mr. Blue]

Sad thing is most people that can afford this stuff doesn't have to do the daily grind on the computer. One funny thing though, you could read this guys emails clear across the office. He typed everything in word first and would have it full screen and he would have it on like 200% or something.

To Whom It May Concern:

[MrYum]

How about we call it a draw?
I think it's a matter of personal preference anyhow, and I'm too damn old to learn something new.
:D
Works for me...though it must be said, you are a valiant opponent :D

Seriously though, totally understand what you mean. We get so used to our tools...it becomes difficult at best to change unless there's a really strong reason for it...

[Cleo]

In ten years computer screens are going to be whole walls or at least very large.

Magazines, books, and newspapers are a certain size not because they couldn't be made bigger but because it is a size that works for the format.

Just because a screen is 30" doesn't mean that web pages should be made that big. Just as magazines, books, and newspapers are not made the size of your whole desk or reading table.

Most things on the computer are modeled after real world items and I would imagine that web pages will end up the size of magazines, books, and newspapers instead of continuing to grow with screen sizes.

[Mishi]

In ten years computer screens are going to be whole walls or at least very large.

Magazines, books, and newspapers are a certain size not because they couldn't be made bigger but because it is a size that works for the format.

Just because a screen is 30" doesn't mean that web pages should be made that big. Just as magazines, books, and newspapers are not made the size of your whole desk or reading table.

Most things on the computer are modeled after real world items and I would imagine that web pages will end up the size of magazines, books, and newspapers instead of continuing to grow with screen sizes.


That's an excellent point. No matter what size and resolution monitors may reach, there will always be a range of paragraph widths and font sizes that are of a comfortable size for reading for most people.

I think there should be a CSS font-range parameter, or something...so we can have reasonable control over layout while still allowing the end-user to be comfortable.

[SexyCityEddie]

i prefer 1280 X 1024

[Rui]

Its a shame I can't find Dell monitors here, because they have some really great ones, really wanted to get a 2005fpw :(

[mOrrI]

I use 1024 x 768 :D

[-efreet-]

1024x768 - for me
800x600 - for sites

[krki]

Always use 800x600 resolution, I am too lazy to change it to higher.

[Count Zero]

I'm usually use resolution 1280x768

[Litwa]

I use 1024x768 and prefer to work on stuff preperd for 800x600 - I like clear view.

Of corse displays size will grow up. For last 15 yrs standard size is bigger about 50% (14-21). Its much more easy to work on big monitors, having many windows open.