Post your thoughts on phasing out 800x600 and start designing for 1024x768 and up

[[BV]]

Think it's too early still?

I just looked and 85% of my users are running 1024 x 768 or higher and the other 15% of my users are running 800x600 or smaller.

Does pissing off 15% to make the other 85% happier make sense?

At what point do you take the plunge? 10%, 5%?

Discuss......

[Jel]

How do you find out which resolution they are surfing? I have awstats but see only the browser, not the resolution.

[RawAlex]

BV, the theory is that you can satisfy 100% of them if you use the lower size. This topic seems to come up about every 6 months, and each time it gets closer to "bigger screen" time. Some of the blogs and things I am working on use larger screen widths.

Alex

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by Jel

How do you find out which resolution they are surfing? I have awstats but see only the browser, not the resolution.

I'm not familiar with aw stats.
I'm not sure if you can get that info from the Apache log file either. Something tells me no. When I parse my log files with FastStats Analyzer there is no browser resolution information.

The stats I posted above are from using http://www.statcounter.com/ on a few of my pages.

[swedguy]

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/February/res.php

I use 1024x768 and it doesn't make me happier if a site is bigger (made for 1024). But it does piss me off if I have to scroll horizontally.

[[BV]]

I just thought of an idea, I'm going to place an invisible counter inside the members area and check the resolution stats of the "paying" customers.

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by swedguy

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/February/res.php

I use 1024x768 and it doesn't make me happier if a site is bigger (made for 1024). But it does piss me off if I have to scroll horizontally.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't of used the term happy. My main point is to make use of all the available "billboard" real estate on the potential customers monitor.

[Jel]

Gotcha on the stats. With the billboard real estate that can be overcome by using a % table width once you know it fits at 800x600, but obviously sometimes it's hard to get things looking how you want exactly in both resolutions. I tend to make my freesites specifically at 800x600 'compliant' and tinker more with main sites to make the most of both resolutions.

[Maj. Stress]

Originally Posted by Jel

I tend to make my freesites specifically at 800x600 'compliant' and tinker more with main sites to make the most of both resolutions.

Well put, with a little thought you can make that 800x600 area the "focal point" of your pages. Afterall, it is about drawing attention to your message!

[RawAlex]

My concern working with a very large monitor is that when the browser is maximized, those 480X80 banners look freaking puny! at my current 1600X1200, I can put THREE of them side by side and still have spacing. That means if I build a site for 800X600, then I am looking at more empty space besides those banners than there is banner. At a certain point it isn't just a question of billboard space per se, but that the banners themselves are probably too small relative to the viewing area.

Alex

[Kinky]

I build to fit 800x600 but if I use banners I try to use big ones so that the surfers with high resolutions don't see a tiny little ad

[Surfn]

Banners have been dead for me for years. If you want to add something to text use headers

[Useless]

The issue that seems to get somewhat forgotten is the fact that you shouldn't build for higher resolustions while leaving your font and image sizes the same as you've used for 8x6. Those things should be resized relative to the page size for easier viewing. Everyone who wants to build for the higher resolutions always seem to want to squeeze in more ad space around the original page which was constructed for 8x6, and is very difficult to read at 10x7. If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.

Did that make any sense or did I talk myself into a circle again?

[Cleo]

Mine is set for 1152x720 but I don't surf with my browser taking up the whole screen.

[Jim]

My thinking has always been to build for the least common denominator. I remember when java and javascript was just cool and not considered evil. But it took years before IE decided to include it in their browser. They just kept fighting it and fighting it coming up with their own crap. Until finally they decided to use it.

So, until you see 90% or more using more than 800x600, stick with it. Of course, you could always design 2 copies and let them choose. When I built my first adult site, there was a little script that looked at the resolution and sent the person to the proper designed site. Then again, that was back when you could make a nice living on just one site. So, I had plenty of time to play around with it.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.

Forget what the site below is about, that's not the point of this example. But open this url in a window the full size of your screen. Then grab your window and start pulling it smaller and smaller while watching what happens to that page elements and text sizes...

http://goldpanner.ca/goldpanner/index.htm

[MonsterPartners]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

The issue that seems to get somewhat forgotten is the fact that you shouldn't build for higher resolustions while leaving your font and image sizes the same as you've used for 8x6. Those things should be resized relative to the page size for easier viewing. Everyone who wants to build for the higher resolutions always seem to want to squeeze in more ad space around the original page which was constructed for 8x6, and is very difficult to read at 10x7. If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.

Did that make any sense or did I talk myself into a circle again?

It made perfect sense to me Very good point too.

[RedCherry]

My screen is 2560x1024, since I have dual monitors, and I agree 800x600 is TINY. Because of my dual monitors, I surf full sized in one screen, so 1280x1024.

I've been using a lot more banners that are 500x100 or 500x150 plus text to make the ad stand out more, but I still build adult sites for 800x600. I build non-adult though for 1024x768.

I tell you one thing, the old paysites built for 800x600 look really goofy in my screen, since most of the tour pages are only 400high. I like the "reality style" better where they may only be 800 wide, but they go down the page a lot further.

I also suggest centering your sites in the window. I always start out with 750 wide centered table around the whole page. Nothing like surfing with all this real estate, and seeing a site crammed into the left corner to look REALLY odd.

I just looked at theredcherry, I have an even 20% now using 800x600. 58% are using 1024x768, the rest are using something larger than 800x600.

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by Simon

Forget what the site below is about, that's not the point of this example. But open this url in a window the full size of your screen. Then grab your window and start pulling it smaller and smaller while watching what happens to that page elements and text sizes...

http://goldpanner.ca/goldpanner/index.htm

I don't think I have ever seen that before. The source code looks encrypted

[[BV]]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

The issue that seems to get somewhat forgotten is the fact that you shouldn't build for higher resolustions while leaving your font and image sizes the same as you've used for 8x6. Those things should be resized relative to the page size for easier viewing. Everyone who wants to build for the higher resolutions always seem to want to squeeze in more ad space around the original page which was constructed for 8x6, and is very difficult to read at 10x7. If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.

Did that make any sense or did I talk myself into a circle again?

I do not agree. With this logic there would be no reason to have higher resolutions and larger monitors. The whole advantage to higher resolutions and larger monitors is to be able to have more usable space on the screen.

[RawAlex]

Jim, interestingly, by your logic we could all build for 640x480 because then you won't piss anyone off... or perhpas 320x160 to make the atari and apple II people happy too, right?

I very, very rarely see anyone using 800x600 in real life anymore, as most computers made in the last 3 or 4 years all use larger screen resolutions. We have also gone a long way from 14 inch to 15 inch to 17 inch monitors now being the "bare minimum" that gets sold with a system. A quick check through bestbuy, example, shows that their smallest crt type monitor is 17 inches... all of $130 dollars.

We are pretty much down to the same level that we all stopped paying attention to the 640x480 screens... it might be time.

Alex

[Useless]

Originally Posted by [BV]

I do not agree.

I guess my Vulcan mind trick didn't work.

Originally Posted by [BV]

With this logic there would be no reason to have higher resolutions and larger monitors.

My point exactly!

Originally Posted by [BV]

The whole advantage to higher resolutions and larger monitors is to be able to have more usable space on the screen.

Higher resolution is for clarity and bigger screens are due to the fact that we are impressed by large things. Keep in mind, just because some surfing fool has his/her screen res set above the good ol' 800x mark, it doesn't mean that they're viewing on a 19 or 23 inch monitor. I believe most users still employ a 17 inch monitor, as do I, and I'm here to tell you, most sites built for 1024x and above are really hard to read. I keep my res set at 800x600 because it's the most viewer-friendly resolution. Here's my piss poor analogy in action: I watch Deadwood on a 35 inch television. My friend watches it on his 50 inch television. We are watching are seeing the same picture. He doesn't see anything more than I do, he just see's it magnified.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...17 inch monitors now being the "bare minimum" that gets sold with a system. A quick check through bestbuy, example, shows that their smallest crt type monitor is 17 inches... all of $130 dollars.

I can't think of any friends for family who currently own anything larger than a 17 inch monitor. (I should mention that I am very socially limited, so I am using a very small market sampling.) Anyway, I think the number we really need is the actual montior sizes in use. As I said in a previous post - 1024x and above tends to be fairly difficult to read on a 17 inch monitor.

[RawAlex]

17" is the standard issue monitor these days. 1024xwhatever or so seems to be about the default resolution with those monitors, although some people so step it down to 800x600.

Rather than increasing in size, many people are moving to LCD monitors instead of CRTs.

My 17 inch secondary monitor is set to 1280x1024 without issues... the 20 inch is set to 1600x1200 (the smaller monitor does email, video display, and ftp work). When I first set it up it felt slightly small, but now when I use my laptop at 800x600, I feel like I am sitting way too close to the screen.

Alex

[Taass]

Originally Posted by [BV]

I just thought of an idea, I'm going to place an invisible counter inside the members area and check the resolution stats of the "paying" customers.

Allready doing that in my members areas.. Here are stats from one :
1024x768 - 56.98%
800x600 - 21.09%
1280x1024 - 13.22%
Other - 4.19%
1152x864 - 3.62%
1600x1200 - 0.44%
640x480 - 0.41%
Varies a bit from site to site, with 800x600 between 18 & and 23%

Other stats that some might be interesting :
Javascript Enabled - 98.79%
Javascript Disabled - 1.21%

Mac OS X - 4.11%
Linux - 0.36% (and 99% of those hackers *lol*)

Screen Colors
32 Bit (16.7M) - 90.70%
16 Bit (65K) - 7.25%
8 Bit (256) - 0.13%