Screen Resolutions (web design)

[HQ]

What screen resolution should web pages be designed in (and why)?

[minimouse]

I still design all my sites at 640x480...

[Juge]

640x480? wow! some OS'es wont even go in that mode, anymore.

[HQ]

minimouse, why?

[diggy]

HQ,

800x600 is pretty much the standard resolution to design for these days. Honestly, fuhgettabout 640x480..

But also remember that a surfer running an 800x600 resolution can only see about 750x480 when you take into account the task bar and other shit. So design for that size to be safe.

-Dave

[HQ]

diggy, that's exactly what I wanted to get at. What is the exact resolution I should design my sites in. How many surfers have ICQ or some other program taking up space on the side? Space on the bottom does not matter as scrolling up and down is ok, but scrolling left to right is slow and horrible.

[Brian911]

Originally posted by Juge
640x480? wow! some OS'es wont even go in that mode, anymore.

every OS supports 640*480.

I design for 800*600 (- taskbar and crap) and simply dont care about those 5% of surfers who run lowers resolutions

[poolie]

i would say 800x600

[catindahat]

I would say the standard size to design website now-a-days would be 800X600.

[Juge]

Originally posted by Brian911


every OS supports 640*480.

I design for 800*600 (- taskbar and crap) and simply dont care about those 5% of surfers who run lowers resolutions

Brian, WinXP, by default, does not support 640x480. A program can tell it to go into this mode, but by default, it is set to 800x600 when you install XP, and the user does not have the option to make it any smaller.

I design for 800x600, since most surfers (like 50%) surf at that resolution. I never really thought to take task bar and ICQ windows into account. I guess I should.

[XXXPaysiteDesign]

800x600

[HQ]

I think 640x480 is out of the question. 800x600 might even be wrong as it depends on who is using ICQ or other desktop programs taking up space.

My ICQ at its minimum takes up 108 pixels wide:



If I design for this i need to go 800-108=692, or 692x600 resolution!

[Juge]

I just checked my task bar and ICQ sizes are they are:

ICQ = 111 pixels wide.
taskbar = 28 pixels high.

I am running in 1600x1200 with normal font settings, in WinME, and I have version 2002a for ICQ.

Damn, that means I have to design for 689 x 572.

Wow.

[HQ]

Oh yeah, fuck... My ICQ pic below is 2000b Beta v.4.65:



Your ICQ width might be different, as Juge's is. And there might be other popular programs that use up space like Messenger (deleted off my system a while ago) and Trillian.

Well, Juge's is the widest so far at 111 so that means 800-111=689, or 692x600 resolution. Pretty tight.

[Fletch XXX]

mmmm big screens.

;stoned

[Brian911]

Originally posted by Juge


Brian, WinXP, by default, does not support 640x480. A program can tell it to go into this mode, but by default, it is set to 800x600 when you install XP, and the user does not have the option to make it any smaller.

I design for 800x600, since most surfers (like 50%) surf at that resolution. I never really thought to take task bar and ICQ windows into account. I guess I should.

maybe you run some weird beta version there, my xp pro supports 640*480 without any problems.

[HQ]

Originally posted by Brian911


maybe you run some weird beta version there, my xp pro supports 640*480 without any problems.

Mine doesn't support 640x480 either... let me check the version... "Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002" under My Computer. Where can I find a more accurate version #?

[Juge]

Originally posted by Brian911
maybe you run some weird beta version there, my xp pro supports 640*480 without any problems.

Strange. All I know is that win XP chose 800x600 before it even had all the drivers installed, and normally it uses mode 12h, 640x480x16 colors - the VGA standard which all cards can handle with the same register settings. I thought it was strange that it went into 800x600... but maybe that's becuase of the graphics card - maybe it knew what it was right away, and knew it could handle it. Still doesn't explain why 640x480 is not accesible, though.

[PornoDoggy]

I'm using XP Home edition, and the lowest res setting available through the control panel is 800x600. I also use a freeware program called Multi-Res that makes changing back and forth between resolutions pretty easy, and it will switch XP into 640x480.

[Stealthy]

Until everyone out there comes to their senses and switches to at least 1024x768, yeah I guess 800x600 is pretty much the standard aint it?

[Supercharged]

Over 50% are at least at 800x600, if your XP wont let you go into 640x480 then its more then likely the graphics card driver, not your version of XP.

we usually design at around 720x400

[HQ]

Originally posted by Supercharged
...if your XP wont let you go into 640x480 then its more then likely the graphics card driver, not your version of XP.

No. That is completely wrong.

[thepezz]

730x340 and it perfectly fits in an 800x600 screen.

[Supercharged]

Well you were right, it was completely wrong, but unlike you I spent 2 minutes to figure out the right way....

Window XP autmatically removes the 640x480 mode to discourage people from using it.

You can select this mode ( for whatever god forsaken reason ) by clicking :

Display Properties
Settings Tab
Advanced Button
Adapter Tab
List All Modes Button
Select Resolution 640x480 at however many colors.

Voila

[HQ]

Originally posted by Supercharged
Well you were right, it was completely wrong, but unlike you I spent 2 minutes to figure out the right way....

Window XP autmatically removes the 640x480 mode to discourage people from using it.

You can select this mode ( for whatever god forsaken reason ) by clicking :

Display Properties
Settings Tab
Advanced Button
Adapter Tab
List All Modes Button
Select Resolution 640x480 at however many colors.

Voila

True, I spent 0.000 minutes trying to figure it out. I knew that I could change it into that mode, and I have a program that does it for me (Refresh Lock, which also maximized my refresh rates automatically as I move in and out of different resolutions, another problem in XP). The point is that by default you can not go into 640x480 in XP and it has nothing to do with my drivers or anything else that is specific to my setup. Everyone with XP (almost) can not go into 640x480.

[HQ]

Originally posted by thepezz
730x340 and it perfectly fits in an 800x600 screen.

That only leaves 60 pixels for my icq, not enough! How many surfers do you think run ICQ or some other program taking up desktop space?

[-=HOAX=-]

When designing sites I usually try to get the stretch and squash effect, using percentages in the table sizes, etc. That way you get a bit of leeway.

[salsbury]

what hoax said. design your pages so they look good if someone maximizes it at 1024x768 and if someone runs it at 640x480 (non-maximized on 800x600, potentially).

if you must design for a specific resolution, consider popping your site up in a new window with the exact size you need and w/o scrollbars. it'll be fugly, and will piss off surfers, but probably not as much as designing it for a specific resolution will in the first place.

[HQ]

Originally posted by -=HOAX=-
When designing sites I usually try to get the stretch and squash effect, using percentages in the table sizes, etc. That way you get a bit of leeway.

Very good idea. I thought of this too. I have always thought that http://www.techtv.com/techtv/ did a really good job at this. One of the best jobs I've seen. But even still, this has its limitations. TechTv is still too small for 800x600 even without ICQ.

Personally I think the 640x480 is out of the question as any surfer using that resolution is very use to seeing every page they visit not fit into their screen. They will never think that it is just you.

[SykkBoy]

for surfers, I still design for 640x480 but for webmasters, I go to 800x600

remember too that AOL's browsers don't open full screen, so even if they are running 800x600, their windows don't do full unless they maximize...

I remmeber the shock I got with a client last year...I design what on my machine was a sharp looking site, but when we viweed it in his office, I about shit my pants...they had AOL (with their shitty compression on) a 19 inch monitor at 640x480....the design looked like total shit...now I could have gotten arrogant like most IT nerds and said "well maybe you should set your computer to REAL settings" but I wasn't about to sqaunder a $10,000 contract by being a fuckface about it...so, I had to go back and change a lot of shit...

he and his secretary have poor vision so use 640x480 resolution and believe me, he had more than enough money to spend on internet shopping...

just something to keep in mind when designing...remember, when you're designing, you want surfers to see the pussy, save the fancy designs for the webmasters as THEY are the ones impressed by shiny objects....surfers just wanna see the pussy....

[Juge]

Originally posted by Stealthy
Until everyone out there comes to their senses and switches to at least 1024x768, yeah I guess 800x600 is pretty much the standard aint it?

Yup. But if surfers came to their senses, how much money would we really be making?

That's why I said this before, and I'll say it again: If you consider that the stupid people are the ones most likely to make you money, then consider that the stupid people are the ones with shitty computers running at 800x600 on a 14" or 15" monitor.

[Juge]

Originally posted by -=HOAX=-
When designing sites I usually try to get the stretch and squash effect, using percentages in the table sizes, etc. That way you get a bit of leeway.

This is usually good, but sometimes this looks really bad in high resolutions, like 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. But, as far as surfers are concerned, this the minority. Like the 640x480 people. The way I look at it, is that these people are going to see crappy websites everywhere - so yours will be no different.

[Brian911]

I could choose 640*480 using "properties->settings->screen resolution" from the first start of win xp on.
but maybe its some hidden tool or so, I got tons of those ;)

[HQ]

Originally posted by Brian911
I could choose 640*480 using "properties->settings->screen resolution" from the first start of win xp on.
but maybe its some hidden tool or so, I got tons of those ;)

That only works in some versions of XP. Others, like my own, do not have that as an option (by default):

[easy01]

You should use exactly maximum 735 pixels wide pages if you want to fit on 800x600 screen.

By default you can choose only 800x600 pixels for a minimum for XP whichever version.
But , in display properties-->settings-->advanced-->adapter and then choose the mode you want.

[HQ]

Originally posted by easy01
You should use exactly maximum 735 pixels wide pages if you want to fit on 800x600 screen.

Why?

Originally posted by easy01
By default you can choose only 800x600 pixels for a minimum for XP whichever version.
But , in display properties-->settings-->advanced-->adapter and then choose the mode you want.

True.

[Juge]

Originally posted by SykkBoy2
for surfers, I still design for 640x480 but for webmasters, I go to 800x600

remember too that AOL's browsers don't open full screen, so even if they are running 800x600, their windows don't do full unless they maximize...

I remmeber the shock I got with a client last year...I design what on my machine was a sharp looking site, but when we viweed it in his office, I about shit my pants...they had AOL (with their shitty compression on) a 19 inch monitor at 640x480....the design looked like total shit...now I could have gotten arrogant like most IT nerds and said "well maybe you should set your computer to REAL settings" but I wasn't about to sqaunder a $10,000 contract by being a fuckface about it...so, I had to go back and change a lot of shit...

he and his secretary have poor vision so use 640x480 resolution and believe me, he had more than enough money to spend on internet shopping...

just something to keep in mind when designing...remember, when you're designing, you want surfers to see the pussy, save the fancy designs for the webmasters as THEY are the ones impressed by shiny objects....surfers just wanna see the pussy....

640x480 with AOL? OW.

Very good points there, at the end. I've been thinking the same way - the design is good for the design, but most people dont give a shit for design. Look at the hun, for fuck's sake..

[Juge]

Originally posted by Juge
I just checked my task bar and ICQ sizes are they are:

ICQ = 111 pixels wide.
taskbar = 28 pixels high.

I am running in 1600x1200 with normal font settings, in WinME, and I have version 2002a for ICQ.

Damn, that means I have to design for 689 x 572.

Wow.

Also, remember that sometimes people dont have their windows maximized. They have it as large as it can get without going off of the screen. Maximize actually moves the edges off of the screen. I know this, because this happens to me sometimes. Actually, I bet a lot of surfers (the dumb ones) dont even know how to maximize. I see people surfing like this all the time. So, really, you should design for 800x600 - icq - task bar - full maximize, then minus whatever reasonable space people surf with, without thinking they can maximize, like another 20 pixels or show... hmmm.

Or, maybe we could just those people, and design 1024x768.

[easy01]

Originally posted by HQ


True.

Because the browser takes a little space from the side

[HQ]

Originally posted by easy01
Because the browser takes a little space from the side

I'm talking about the screen resolution, not the maximum image size in a web page. In other words, when I (or anyone else) says 800x600, they mean 800x600 screen resolution (size of the browser), not 800x600 web page size (size of the site inside of the browser).

[Juge]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy
I'm using XP Home edition, and the lowest res setting available through the control panel is 800x600. I also use a freeware program called Multi-Res that makes changing back and forth between resolutions pretty easy, and it will switch XP into 640x480.

You know, one of the the reasons I haven't moved to WinXP, is because, in any resolution, it defaults to 60 or 70 Hz. Normally, the lower the resolution you go, the higher the refresh rate. I get 160 Hz on mine in 800x600, and 120 Hz in 1024x768, and 100 Hz in most of the others. I even get 85 Hz in 1600x1200. That's with a Dell P1110 21"er, and those refresh rates rock. If you want to invest in some good equipment, forget CPU speed, but a good monitor - what a difference, and it will last you for years. Get the faster CPU some other time; it's only going to be obsolete in a year, anyway.

Anyway, 60Hz in winXP blows. You guys don't know what you are missing. I can't believe MS took out the refresh setting in advance settings under display properties. There's some util. I think that's out that allows you to fix this flaw... but I can't remember it.

[corvo]

800x600 seems to be the standard, and i desin to that too.
be far more fun once everyone goes to 1600x1200 though

[HQ]

SykkBoy2, does AOL still have that shitty compression? To the day, I still have not seen what AOL looks like.

[Rex]

I always shoot for 800 by 600

[Juge]

Originally posted by HQ
SykkBoy2, does AOL still have that shitty compression? To the day, I still have not seen what AOL looks like.

I wonder how crappy all of our sites look on it. It was a good idea. But man, they are treating their surfers badly... No wonder people think they are all morons... heh.

[HQ]

Yeah, someone on AOL post some screenshots.