New Resolution Standards.

[sixteenbits]

Hello, everyone...

This is my first post.

I have been a graphic designer and web developer for the past 5 years, I am however, experiencing difficulty finding info on general screen resolution standards. Last I checked it was 800x600.

I am designing a new site, but I need the 1024x768 real estate.

Can anyone verify this for me?

Thx

Jeffy

[brothercake]

You can't rely on having 1024x768 - I don't have the figures, but they're beside the point anyway - you can't really rely on having 800x600 - there are lots of smaller devices out there - 640x480, 1024x480 ...

The best approach is to make a fluid design that works even at very low resolution. But if you really need a baseline, 800x600 is still it, and will probably stay like that for the foreseeable future - it's not just a case of technological advancement and having a better monitor - lots of people prefer that resolution.

[liorean]

I can see a climb to 1024x786 in the standard, but many will still use 800x600. Anyway, you should never count on that you can use the whole width anyway. For climbing higher in resolution, we either need to raise the screen sizes (I don't think we'll see that many > 23" screens in the future either) or to raise the DPI, which in effect means that graphics will be smaller, but text stay the same size relative to the screen size, for the same physical screen size.

[sixteenbits]

I kinda Figured, but I just wanted to verify this.

Unfortunately, this means shifting the entire site down from across. Which is gonna make the charts and tables look like crap, that is why I need constrained sizes. I don't want the data to be squished on lower res. monitors, nor do I want it spread out on higher res. / larger monitor sizes either.


I don't know how anyone can work on 800x600. Sheesh.

But thanks anyways

Jeffy

[oracleguy]

Also consider the type of users you are catering too. If you are making a site that talks about programming or some computer savvy topic, you can prolly be safe designing for 1024 becuase most "techies" aren't going to be running the default, low resolution.

[brothercake]

No .. but they might have small windows - I run 1152 but I never have browsers maximized - I typically browse in windows about 800 square.

Personally, I think the 800x600 design baseline is never going to change, even if next to no-one uses a monitor of that actual resolution. And they will anyway .. I know a designer who has a huge monitor but set to 800x600, because she wants to be able to see things up close.

Is there another way you can layout your data? Perhaps within a scrolling region, or parts of it can scroll, or you could put it in a PDF that people can zoom in on..?

[mindlessLemming]

Originally posted by brothercake
No .. but they might have small windows - I run 1152 but I never have browsers maximized - I typically browse in windows about 800 square.

Sounds like a mac user

[liorean]

Most tech savvy persons use multiple windows even on Windows. On the Mac the difference is that almost nodody uses single windows.

[J&J]

$$ talks, resolution walks...

Originally posted by sixteenbits
I don't know how anyone can work on 800x600. Sheesh.

...Those who spend $$ on 17in. monitors and decent 2D/3D video cards still use 800x600, probably due to partial blindness. I love how games look in a bigger resolution (when the games are built for it), but when it comes to reading stuff like web pages, the desktop, etc. - 800x600 is more legible to me than choosing a larger font that skews everything else.

You should try it... set up your desktop at a higher resolution, then use large fonts. Then spend the next few hours resizing all icons, icon fonts, etc so they all look proportioned.... Then realize that your Start menu and folders, etc. are all still in the higher resolution, teenie-sized font. ...Anyways, enough with my griping...

Most home users and older/bigger companies still use 800x600 because they have old, smaller monitors which are cheap & still working (after 10 years) so why bother upgrading? Why spend $200 on a monitor when yours still works, and when you can buy a CD burner or DVD player with that $ instead?
Plus, resolution isn't something these folks look at or bother with because for many out there, it's still too "techno-geeky" to comprehend (and possibly way more than they need, if all they do is surf the web for TV show listings). Price tags are easier to comprehend...

Look at my boss for example - after 10 years of using a computer, you'd think he'd learn that his file didn't disappear, he just accidentally minimized it... Or that writing letters in ALL CAPS is not only unprofessional, but shows you're too lazy or uneducated to do something about it. Or that.... ehem....
Ok, guess I was griping some more.


"Hey, look at the $499 computer for sale with a 15inch monitor!" (Not to mention crappy resolution...)

"That's a steal, compared to the $599 computer next to it with NO monitor... The monitor's probably another $200-$500, if you even wanna take the time to look around for one!"

"Yeah, I think I'm gonna buy this computer with monitor. It's cheap and convenient, and I can set it up right away to use. I don't wanna waste time at a million other stores to find one when this'll do..."