Retire the 800 Table Rule

[DaveE]

less than 10% of my traffic runs at 800x600 I think its time to stop building sites for minorities.

Why should 90% of traffic have to suffer and squint to accomidate a poor minority.

Lets face it the time for 800 x 600 was in the last century, anybody still running that size probably has no money to spend on porn anyway.

[Thomas]

This is stats from thecounter.com for aug 2006:

1024x768 61300035 (55%)
1280x1024 21103528 (19%)
800x600 18625349 (16%)
Unknown 4539013 (4%)
1152x864 3836621 (3%)
1600x1200 890852 (0%)
640x480 336980 (0%)

/Thomas

[johnnybg]

I'll do that for my free sites when all LL's that I submit to change their <800 rule. I don't want to make two versions of single free site.

As for other sites, I mostly use adjustable design to fill up the screen.

[Jeremy]

Most sites seem to look better at 800 IMO as they are mainly viewed in a top to bottom fashion rather than side to side, but I'm not too worried if a site is 1024 - haven't been for ages.

[DJilla]

I've thought 'bout this and IMHO I've have come to the decision that its probably not a good idea. Mainly I think if you give WM's the extra real estate they'll just overstuff it full of crap tending to make their already marginal sites horrible. Its good discipline to design sites that can resize themselves well. Also, even though your stats may suggest a 1024 preference it doesn't speak to a surfers appreciation for the 800px standard when they want to run multiple windows on their screen. Finally, I can see sites actually getting smaller in the future rather than bigger as content is designed for the smaller screen size of wireless devices.

[Linkster]

I thought that we already started changing that rule back in the middle of August - I know Greenguy has already changed his rule 17 and Im sure the rest will probably follow suit - I know I dont have a problem with it (even if my rules havent been changed LOL)

[Greenguy]

You know, you can build a site at 800 wide, verify that it's not scrolling, change it to 100%, verify that it looks decent at 1024 & then use that

[Mr. Blue]

Unfortunately, lol, I've gotten used to building 800px sized pages (I also complained about them one time, lol) and I'm not really all that hell bent on increasing the size now. I mean for hubs, etc, sure, make those wider, but there was never any rules dictating the width of hubs, seo pages, etc, etc, etc.

As for galleries / freesites / etc. What are you going to do with the extra space? If you carefully think about your design an 800px sized page looks pretty damn good compared to some of the sprawling pages that just use up space because it's there.

[Carrie]

Originally Posted by DJilla

Mainly I think if you give WM's the extra real estate they'll just overstuff it full of crap tending to make their already marginal sites horrible.

Maybe their sites look like crap because they're on standard-size resolutions trying to design for outdated resolutions.

Also, even though your stats may suggest a 1024 preference it doesn't speak to a surfers appreciation for the 800px standard when they want to run multiple windows on their screen.

Since we're talking about numbers and majorities here, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that the majority of surfers don't tile windows side by side so they can see two sites at once when surfing for entertainment reasons.

Finally, I can see sites actually getting smaller in the future rather than bigger as content is designed for the smaller screen size of wireless devices.

Okay, so at some unknown time in the future, when the numbers show that the majority of surfing is done on little 3" screens, we can demand that everyone's site be 170 pixels wide. *Until* then, designing for the majority of surfers is best.

[Maj. Stress]

I wonder how may people surf with their window maximized?
Personally I don't care how wide a site is. It's the design that counts.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Thomas

This is stats from thecounter.com for aug 2006:

1024x768 61300035 (55%)
1280x1024 21103528 (19%)
800x600 18625349 (16%)
Unknown 4539013 (4%)
1152x864 3836621 (3%)
1600x1200 890852 (0%)
640x480 336980 (0%)

/Thomas

Perhaps it's the dinosaur in me, but based on the above numbers...I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel on 800 wide yet. The time will come for sure, but 16% remains at 800.

Look at it this way...by building for 800 wide, you're serving up a quality experience for 93%+ of your target market. Conversely, by not building for 800...you're effectively alienating 16% of that audience, by forcing them to side scroll (possibly missing your ads if they're on the right of the screen).

In a brick and mortar business, would you have someone stand outside the door and direct 1.6 of every 10 customers to a tacky warehouse based solely on the fact that they arrived to your store in an older model car?

In reality, if you build correctly...your sites will look good at all resolutions. Yes, you do give up some real estate...but you don't force any appreciable percentage of your customers into a lesser surfing experience either.

This reasoning was why I lauched the re-design of FPP to fit at 800 wide...and it looks good all the way up to my screen size at 1280. Yep, some white space on both sides at wider res...but so what...

[Lemmy]

I build all my freesites 740 px wide and I don' intend to change that anytime soon. They're guaranteed to fit in an 800 window and still look quite good (in my not-so-humble opinion ) on my 19-inch monitor at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I review at that resolution also. I'm not a side scroll nazi, but if there is one at my setup it has to be pretty huge.

[Cleo]

I personally like my sites 800 wide as that seems to be about the same size as printed stuff and also not everyone surfs full screen, I don't. That being said I've already changed my rules to follow Greenguy's rules of 1024 wide.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

I build all my freesites 740 px wide and I don' intend to change that anytime soon. They're guaranteed to fit in an 800 window and still look quite good (in my not-so-humble opinion ) on my 19-inch monitor at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I review at that resolution also. I'm not a side scroll nazi, but if there is one at my setup it has to be pretty huge.

I probably should have mentioned that in my prior post. Given the number of lists who are lightening up on the rule, I will do the same. If a site is close and is otherwise clean, I'll let it a little side scroll slide...but will probably let the submitter know they do have a little side scroll

[ladydesigner]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I surf and review sites at 800 wide. My husband teases me and says "nobody" uses that resolution anymore. Anywho, I'm not changing anytime soon but I suppose that for both my link lists, I too will go easier on sites with a little side scroll.

[stuveltje]

i build (oke if i build something) and review at the 800 width, i think it looks better, i wont kick all who submit wider then 800 (that depens on the linksite and how all the pages are from the free site,because alot dont have their free site totally on the 1024 size if they build that way, i mean first page, 1024, second 800 galleries 1200+, i am like the curtains have to match the room, so if you build on width 800 or 1024 keep your fucking pages of your free site all the same width ) but hell some use VERY BIG FONTS ON THE 1024 WIDTH and i dont like big fontsthe chinese dutch woman has spoken

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by johnnybg

I'll do that for my free sites when all LL's that I submit to change their <800 rule. I don't want to make two versions of single free site.

As for other sites, I mostly use adjustable design to fill up the screen.

Sticking to your idea would be the least headaches for everybody.

I like adjustable sites, but I worry about too many changing variables, with all the browser and font issues.

To me the perfect site right now would be 1000 tables and all .gif text. Static perfection but a pain for updates

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by DJilla

I've thought 'bout this and IMHO I've have come to the decision that its probably not a good idea. Mainly I think if you give WM's the extra real estate they'll just overstuff it full of crap tending to make their already marginal sites horrible. Its good discipline to design sites that can resize themselves well. Also, even though your stats may suggest a 1024 preference it doesn't speak to a surfers appreciation for the 800px standard when they want to run multiple windows on their screen. Finally, I can see sites actually getting smaller in the future rather than bigger as content is designed for the smaller screen size of wireless devices.

Well generally I would like to make my graphics proportionally bigger more detail is much nicer to view.
I think the 800 rule is limiting the quality of our designs. For example digital cameras work on the same principles as web pages and higher res gives better quality.

You make a good point with your wireless remark.
I know a few people making some real money with wireless. I am a dinasaur and still not up to speed in that area yet.

Maybe there will be new domains .cell and we can all design tiny 100 pixel sites

[DaveE]

Ok thanks to everybody so far. You have all made some excellent points and arguments.

I still think my strongest argument is the quality one.
I guess I want more resolution for my designs, and I am going to fight for that right. I can't believe anybody thinks 800 looks nicer than 1000

I feel 1000 wide will increase my sales and by the sounds of it will not restrict acceptance of my new free sites to the majority of link sites. And I believe if we all start doing this then the last few link sites will change their rules to match the demand for more detail.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by DaveE

Ok thanks to everybody so far. You have all made some excellent points and arguments.

I still think my strongest argument is the quality one.
I guess I want more resolution for my designs, and I am going to fight for that right. I can't believe anybody thinks 800 looks nicer than 1000

I feel 1000 wide will increase my sales and by the sounds of it will not restrict acceptance of my new free sites to the majority of link sites. And I believe if we all start doing this then the last few link sites will change their rules to match the demand for more detail.

Wow Dave...to be blunt, that's probably not the best attitude to get people to work with you. As has been said many times, wide does not necessarily mean quality...any more than 800 wide means crappy.

As mentioned previously, I'm not ready to force 15% of my surfers to any appreciable side scroll just yet. I'd rather cater to 90%+ of my market, than 75%.

But of course, it's your call...just like it's a reviewers call whether or not they list your 1000 pixel wide sites. Guess only time will tell...but I for one will not be 'forced' into anything

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by DaveE

I still think my strongest argument is the quality one..... I can't believe anybody thinks 800 looks nicer than 1000

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, Dave :-))

I personally think that if a person can't make a site look decent at 800 (because there's very little actual "content" on a typical free site), then increasing it to 1024 (or 1000) may just have the effect of spreading the rubbish around and about the screen a little more.

That said, show us one of your "nicer" 1000 wide designs :-)

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Wow Dave...to be blunt, that's probably not the best attitude to get people to work with you. As has been said many times, wide does not necessarily mean quality...any more than 800 wide means crappy.

As mentioned previously, I'm not ready to force 15% of my surfers to any appreciable side scroll just yet. I'd rather cater to 90%+ of my market, than 75%.

But of course, it's your call...just like it's a reviewers call whether or not they list your 1000 pixel wide sites. Guess only time will tell...but I for one will not be 'forced' into anything

Attitude,

I thought you said a small side scoll was ok. what does that mean ? 801 I misunderstood you is all. I never said 800 was crappy just 1000 allows for higher quality. Seems to me you have the attitude here more than me. My comments were in no way bad attitude they were well thought out and humorous. But maybe my humour was a little too dry,

[DaveE]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, Dave :-))

I personally think that if a person can't make a site look decent at 800 (because there's very little actual "content" on a typical free site), then increasing it to 1024 (or 1000) may just have the effect of spreading the rubbish around and about the screen a little more.

That said, show us one of your "nicer" 1000 wide designs :-)

As soon as I make my first one you will see it.
I plan on making 100 free sites but I wanted to establish what width they should be first. When I make them it will be a large task so I wanted to make something that would look good for the future as much as now.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by DaveE

Attitude,

I thought you said a small side scoll was ok. what does that mean ? 801 I misunderstood you is all. I never said 800 was crappy just 1000 allows for higher quality. Seems to me you have the attitude here more than me. My comments were in no way bad attitude they were well thought out and humorous. But maybe my humour was a little too dry,

Indeed...and I stand by that...a 'little' side scroll will slide by, provided other standards are met. However, a 25% increase is not a 'little' side scroll...any more than 15% is a 'little' number of customers.

That said, and I alluded to this in Greenies thread regarding his new rules. This is by NO means saying I insist on being on pages with LOR. However, if a site is built for Greenies new standards and has his recip on it...I'll most likely ignore the side scroll issue.

We'll simply agree to disagree on the quality issue, as I see great quality sites every day built to 800 wide. And we'll also agree to disagree on the attitudes...I must have missed the humor in the tone of your post. If it was there, I missed it...no harm...no foul.

[virgohippy]

Wait a minute... MrYum had an attitude? |shocking|

I always thought Yum was so busy being a nice guy and getting laid he didn't have the energy to pretend mean!