DESIGNERS, what resolution do YOU design for

[allofzen]

Actually, everyone... what resolution do YOU do design for now?

Back 6 years ago, I designed for 800x600, but now, is 1024x768 a safe bet?

This is for blogs, TGP's, toplist sites, etc...

[Basic_man]

1024 x 768 !! WTF with 800x600?!? Nobody have 13" screen anymore! And if they are so cheap, I don't bother about these cheapass fucker! :P

[dropped9]

I design for whatever the client wants.

[1off]

only thing i do above 800 wide is sites geared toward webmasters. Anything surfer related stays below 800. Analytics tells me 10 to 20% of my visitors are still on 800x600

It usually has nothing to do with the size of their monitor either. They just don't like shit real small.

[allofzen]

Originally Posted by 1off

only thing i do above 800 wide is sites geared toward webmasters. Anything surfer related stays below 800. Analytics tells me 10 to 20% of my visitors are still on 800x600

It usually has nothing to do with the size of their monitor either. They just don't like shit real small.

Very good point...

BUT, for the 80-90% of the surfers, would a maximized screen improve sales? I mean, you have much more real estate to display content and ads

[gr-FX]

1024 x 768

[1off]

Originally Posted by allofzen

Very good point...

BUT, for the 80-90% of the surfers, would a maximized screen improve sales? I mean, you have much more real estate to display content and ads

it's a tough trade off. a horizontal scroll will pretty much turn anyone off of a site so by appealing to the large resolutions, you elimante the smaller ones.

Plus if you really know how to design (not how to make things sparkle) you know how to lay things out to get the surfers attention. If you get it, they will do what it takes to see more. Always remember to put the best stuff "above the fold" as they say

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

Originally Posted by 1off

only thing i do above 800 wide is sites geared toward webmasters. Anything surfer related stays below 800. Analytics tells me 10 to 20% of my visitors are still on 800x600

Yep, somewhere between 10-20% of all internet users are still bouncing around on 800by600 res. That's still a pretty large number of people to ignore, or irritate with a horizontal scroll bar. I build everything to just fit into a 800by600 resolution...

[JD]

None of the new computers are coming in at 800x600 anymore. I design for 1024 unless otherwise requested.

[cardinalvices]

according to my records 65% percent of users are now using 1024x resolutions, and only 10% use 800x. So its wise to switch to 1024x

[webgurl]

Originally Posted by Basic_man

1024 x 768 !! WTF with 800x600?!? Nobody have 13" screen anymore! And if they are so cheap, I don't bother about these cheapass fucker! :P

LOL good theory funny

[aidantrent]

I keep all of the content in an 800px wide div; every usability study will tell you that people hate reading long lines of text, and the same goes for rows of thumbnails. It saturates your vision. Keep the width reasonable and use lots of vertical spacing to keep the page looking elegant.

That said, there's no reason not to use background or other ornamentation that stretches out to 1024 or wider. Just be sure to do it correctly with CSS so that it doesn't stretch the browser window for people on smaller screens.

[[ Nate ]]

Originally Posted by Headless

I design for whatever the client wants.

Same, Same.

[jolly_roger]

noob here - just wanted to give my 2 cents - 1024x768 is what i've been designing in for the past 2 years - however, html emails are still set to 800x600...

[psili]

Only opinion I have, is that whatever screen resolution you shoot for don't expect users to be surfing with a full-screen browser or even wanting to.

[B9_John]

few recent clients said "fuck that 10% i want 1024px capable design"

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

to me, a site that is designed for 800 pixel width looks no worse on 1024, i doubt the average surfer gives a flying fuck really if there content is a little "thinner" however, when it is a little too wide, i immediately close the page. I'll probably design for 800 widht another year or so.

[psili]

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

to me, a site that is designed for 800 pixel width looks no worse on 1024, i doubt the average surfer gives a flying fuck really if there content is a little "thinner" however, when it is a little too wide, i immediately close the page. I'll probably design for 800 widht another year or so.

Exactly.
Designers often forget that form should follow function. A site that is to wide is not functional. Something may look cool once or twice, but if it's ultimately un-usable, it's worthless.

[cj_purve]

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

to me, a site that is designed for 800 pixel width looks no worse on 1024, i doubt the average surfer gives a flying fuck really if there content is a little "thinner" however, when it is a little too wide, i immediately close the page. I'll probably design for 800 widht another year or so.

Exactly ... and while 20% of people are still using 800 pixels I'll still design for them & let everyone else have an extra 150 pixels either side of the design rather than cutting 150 pixels off the 800 pixel surfer - which effectively can cut off the 'next' button which should be bottom right of first frame.

Its not just desktops, almost everyone has a laptop these days too & there's nothing worse than taking your fancy 1024 design to a client to show them on a laptop & a chunk of its cut off.

I start every new site with a 750 to 780 pixel wide table unless the client specifies otherwise.

[M0nk]

800x600 not much people have more than 800x600 here

[borys]

I wonder why so many designers assume that all surfers use fullscreen windows.

Most ppl I know, including myself, have 1280x1024 displays now, but they still use browser windows below 1024 width. Someone looking at your page doesn't mean their screen is all yours.

[lucas131]

1024 is standard now imo

[pornvue]

1024 is the standard size today...but we try to make our designs to be compatible in all resolution (CSS thing i guess)