This is kind of a difficult question to answer. I would say the best thing you can do is actually use a fluid layout, measuring everything in percentages, but if this is not possible then cater to a screen size of 800x600 because everyone else will be able to properly view the website.
Then, if your host or some other service provides for a monitor of your visitors and viewers, you can see what the most often used monitor resolution is and cater more to your specific clients.
Kurtis
decibel.places posted this at 14:55 — 25th June 2008.
You can also use a fluid theme that adjusts to display size (using percentages instead of fixed pixel values) but that can create some unexpected layouts.
It depends on what you mean by "compatible". Does that mean:
1. no horizontal scrolling
2. fills the screen
3. looks good
And do you really mean "every single user"? The site I develop at work still gets a few visitors at 640 x 480 but I would never consider restricting width to 640 these days, especially when the majority are at 1024 and above (in fact, the real majority is above 1280.
I see sites developed for all possible resolutions, but they look kind of sanitized.
I should add that on 1024 sites I refrain from putting important content or navigation on the right side so it is not cut off at 800 - for now, we shall see.
I'm working on a site the designer made it 600x480 but it looks so odd in say 1440x900
Yes she is PM and hired me to create the site per the design, and integrate it with a Spreadshirt store (for selling tshirts, your design, their manufacturing and fulfillment).
I think she is talented in an edgy independent comix way, I use a different designer who helped create the Seventeen and Cosmopolitan websites for projects that are more slick.
It's nice to have some options.
There is nothing wrong with a 600x480 site if it serves your purpose and concept.
andrewtayloruk posted this at 15:01 — 26th June 2008.
Yes she is PM and hired me to create the site per the design, and integrate it with a Spreadshirt store (for selling tshirts, your design, their manufacturing and fulfillment).
I think she is talented in an edgy independent comix way, I use a different designer who helped create the Seventeen and Cosmopolitan websites for projects that are more slick.
It's nice to have some options.
There is nothing wrong with a 600x480 site if it serves your purpose and concept.
She may be the most artistic person in the world but that doesn't necessarily translate to the internet. I'd class a 640x480 website as a microsite and wouldn't use a site that size to sell anything.
I know she is the client, but sometimes you need to convince them what they're proposing is no good.
Please don't take offence by the way, my issue is with the actual design, not your ability.
decibel.places posted this at 15:12 — 26th June 2008.
no offense taken, we're all compadres here, right?
well, last I heard she is enlarging it all the way up to 730px but we shall see
as I said in other threads, if all my clients came to me tomorrow and said "here is the stuff you've been waiting for" I'd be in a bind - but we all know that will never happen
andrewtayloruk posted this at 15:16 — 26th June 2008.
I am PM for a project to rebuild a moderately complex Flash site because client and producer lost their fla file (not a project I worked on previously). I hooked up Arif, my pal in Hyderabad whose company Anteriorsoft does excellent Flash development. Arif did not require a contract, only a written authorization in email by producer to pay x amount for the delivered site to be completed x days. Arif delivered one or two days late, partly due to producer requesting changes in a vague way that needed clarification. Site has been up for 2 weeks now and producer has missed two payments he said he would make. He says his kid was hit with a line drive and he is not focusing on the project as a priority. There was no specified schedule for payment, about two weeks could be a "reasonable" time frame for payment, although Arif expected payment immediately on completion. I spend about 1/2 hour once or twice a day with Arif on Skype analyzing the producer's intentions. I have worked with this producer previously and I do not think he is a crook, but I do think he is full blown nuts. If he is not on drugs, it is because he doesn't need them to act erratically. I ended up paying Arif 50% from my pocket because he was in an embarrassing situation with his own employees and we have a relationship that transcends this particular project, with plans for other projects together - and I sincerely believe the producer will eventually set things right. Main reason I took the project is I admire the client's artwork. Next time I PM a project, I will make sure there is a contract.
Of around 11 million visits to the site i look after at work: 29.06% are using 1024x768, 21.18% are using 1280x1024, 2.19% using 800x600 and the rest is spread out.
I don't think it is possible to make a site viewable to every single user, well it is but you need to ask yourself whether 2% of visitors are worth compromising the experience for the other 98% of your visitors.
It is possible to serve different CSS stylesheets and HTML depending on the users resolution. But that becomes a complex site just for serving it's parameters to perfectly suit everyone.
For most sites I make, I work with a 970px wide area (or 60em if I'm making it more size adjustable) and align it centrally.
To be honest, anyone in 800x600 resolution or less will be used to scrolling right/left when browsing the internet, I would say for well over half the sites they visit.
I know just because it's 'the norm' doesn't necessarily make it right to do, but there has to be a compromise somewhere in order to decide a width.
In my opinion netsperience, that site you linked is way to small. I use 1360 x 768, and it is a tiny little thing in the corner of my browser.
It's arguable that my res is way below the small percentage margin for resolutions used, but even with 1024 res it's only about half the screen filled.
I think it's perfectly acceptable now to code for a minimum of 1024 screen res. I think it must be acceptable to say about 75-80% of users are on 1024 or higher.
I'm starting to think that horizontal scrolling for a small percentage of users isn't such a huge crime. If you're talking about 2% of users, then maybe it's okay. There will also be people with screen magnifiers who always see the web that way.
There used to be more problems with designers not being aware of screen resolution issues, which is why a lot of the admonition against horizontal scrolling came up. This doesn't really happen anymore. I think you just need to be aware of your audience and design accordingly.
The other 98% of your visitors have big monitors because they want more screen space. Why not use it? I'm starting to give increasing consideration to the 60% of my visitors who are at resolutions above 1280. What about them? We're going to cater to the 2% at 800 x 600 but not the 60% at higher resolutions?
(yeah, yeah, we don't know that they're maximized. etc. etc. I'm just saying that we need to keep a balanced view of this).
I have referenced Smashing Magazine here at TWF too - I think it has excellent resources, for developers as well as designers.
I didn't even know Opera 9.5 has the zoom feature - I just tried it out on the article site.
I do know that Opera 9.5 will crash on my Vista Home Premium laptop when installed in a folder named "Opera" but not when it's in a folder named "Opera951" for example - I've been working with Opera support to track the bug.
I am using a fixed 990px Drupal theme for my personal site (4 Seasons) and a fluid theme (Ability) for the Hudson County Self-Help Center - on smallish resolutions (less than 1280) the fairly large logo will pop up - thinking about best way to deal with it, probably making the left margin a % not fixed is the way...
FWIW - Opera has had zoom at least since version 6. It also has "fit to window" and other useful goodies like tabs. Other browsers are just catching up.
Cordially, David
--
delete from internet where user_agent="MSIE" and version < 8;
decibel.places posted this at 23:54 — 30th June 2008.
I just got specs for an Intranet with 640x480 resolution!
Also WSIWYG editor, Unix os at a Linux server
Drupal 6.2 (sorry most of the modules you need aren't there yet!)
Oh dear, this is going to be fun!
OK it's still in the early planning stages, the doc was forwarded to me by the PM for "suggestions, feasibility and notes" - I had a few comments, all right!
Most of my sites are fixed width at 800px to 920px. Perfect for 1024 but you get the horizontal scrollbar on 800. But, if you have an 800 monitor (like my old, old laptop) you fully expect to have to scroll every once in a while on some sites.
I usually use a centered container which is flexible depending on the size of the screen. However, I give it a minimum width of 800px to stop any funny looking layouts!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
kazimmerman posted this at 14:46 — 25th June 2008.
He has: 698 posts
Joined: Jul 2005
This is kind of a difficult question to answer. I would say the best thing you can do is actually use a fluid layout, measuring everything in percentages, but if this is not possible then cater to a screen size of 800x600 because everyone else will be able to properly view the website.
Then, if your host or some other service provides for a monitor of your visitors and viewers, you can see what the most often used monitor resolution is and cater more to your specific clients.
Kurtis
decibel.places posted this at 14:55 — 25th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp 8% were using 800x600 as of January 2008
I usually aim for 1024x768
You can also use a fluid theme that adjusts to display size (using percentages instead of fixed pixel values) but that can create some unexpected layouts.
Megan posted this at 15:07 — 25th June 2008.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
It depends on what you mean by "compatible". Does that mean:
1. no horizontal scrolling
2. fills the screen
3. looks good
And do you really mean "every single user"? The site I develop at work still gets a few visitors at 640 x 480 but I would never consider restricting width to 640 these days, especially when the majority are at 1024 and above (in fact, the real majority is above 1280.
We have a further discussion of this topic here:
http://www.webmaster-forums.net/web-design-and-graphics/how-big-are-your...
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
decibel.places posted this at 15:47 — 25th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
good questions, Megan
I see sites developed for all possible resolutions, but they look kind of sanitized.
I should add that on 1024 sites I refrain from putting important content or navigation on the right side so it is not cut off at 800 - for now, we shall see.
I'm working on a site the designer made it 600x480 but it looks so odd in say 1440x900
http://jcat.netsperience.org
I could have centered it horizontally/vertically but designer said align left top.
I always listen to my designer unless it will cause a display or function problem.
she reconsidered and is enlarging the design
andrewtayloruk posted this at 13:35 — 26th June 2008.
They have: 17 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
I'm working on a site the designer made it 600x480 but it looks so odd in say 1440x900
http://jcat.netsperience.org
Ouch! Is this designer doing work for you or is she just commissioning you to make the site?
Does your designer realise it's now 2008?
hehe
decibel.places posted this at 14:49 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Megan,
Yes she is PM and hired me to create the site per the design, and integrate it with a Spreadshirt store (for selling tshirts, your design, their manufacturing and fulfillment).
I think she is talented in an edgy independent comix way, I use a different designer who helped create the Seventeen and Cosmopolitan websites for projects that are more slick.
It's nice to have some options.
There is nothing wrong with a 600x480 site if it serves your purpose and concept.
andrewtayloruk posted this at 15:01 — 26th June 2008.
They have: 17 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Yes she is PM and hired me to create the site per the design, and integrate it with a Spreadshirt store (for selling tshirts, your design, their manufacturing and fulfillment).
I think she is talented in an edgy independent comix way, I use a different designer who helped create the Seventeen and Cosmopolitan websites for projects that are more slick.
It's nice to have some options.
There is nothing wrong with a 600x480 site if it serves your purpose and concept.
She may be the most artistic person in the world but that doesn't necessarily translate to the internet. I'd class a 640x480 website as a microsite and wouldn't use a site that size to sell anything.
I know she is the client, but sometimes you need to convince them what they're proposing is no good.
Please don't take offence by the way, my issue is with the actual design, not your ability.
decibel.places posted this at 15:12 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
no offense taken, we're all compadres here, right?
well, last I heard she is enlarging it all the way up to 730px but we shall see
as I said in other threads, if all my clients came to me tomorrow and said "here is the stuff you've been waiting for" I'd be in a bind - but we all know that will never happen
andrewtayloruk posted this at 15:16 — 26th June 2008.
They have: 17 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Hehe, that's why you want money up front
decibel.places posted this at 15:28 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
yup already collected, deposited, and spent the first 50%
andrewtayloruk posted this at 15:32 — 26th June 2008.
They have: 17 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
I've just quoted for a pretty large job, if i get it i'm going to buy a Mac Pro with the deposit.
decibel.places posted this at 15:54 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Jennifer Kyrnin recommends adding a forfeit clause to your contracts in case the client does not supply materials within the agreed time frame.
Ok - so how many of use contracts every time - how many wish we did in hindsight?
Jenn has an extensive section on webdesign horror stories on her About.com web site.
I am PM for a project to rebuild a moderately complex Flash site because client and producer lost their fla file (not a project I worked on previously). I hooked up Arif, my pal in Hyderabad whose company Anteriorsoft does excellent Flash development. Arif did not require a contract, only a written authorization in email by producer to pay x amount for the delivered site to be completed x days. Arif delivered one or two days late, partly due to producer requesting changes in a vague way that needed clarification. Site has been up for 2 weeks now and producer has missed two payments he said he would make. He says his kid was hit with a line drive and he is not focusing on the project as a priority. There was no specified schedule for payment, about two weeks could be a "reasonable" time frame for payment, although Arif expected payment immediately on completion. I spend about 1/2 hour once or twice a day with Arif on Skype analyzing the producer's intentions. I have worked with this producer previously and I do not think he is a crook, but I do think he is full blown nuts. If he is not on drugs, it is because he doesn't need them to act erratically. I ended up paying Arif 50% from my pocket because he was in an embarrassing situation with his own employees and we have a relationship that transcends this particular project, with plans for other projects together - and I sincerely believe the producer will eventually set things right. Main reason I took the project is I admire the client's artwork. Next time I PM a project, I will make sure there is a contract.
greg posted this at 18:53 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,581 posts
Joined: Nov 2005
http://www.webmaster-forums.net/web-design-and-graphics/how-big-are-your...
Why do I get Access Denied for that link?
Greensphere posted this at 18:00 — 25th June 2008.
They have: 91 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
The widest i use is about 850 ha ha but i am going to go crazy and widen them further still to about 900.
pr0gr4mm3r posted this at 18:12 — 25th June 2008.
He has: 1,502 posts
Joined: Sep 2006
I have been fitting my sites for 1024+ resolutions.
andrewtayloruk posted this at 13:41 — 26th June 2008.
They have: 17 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Of around 11 million visits to the site i look after at work: 29.06% are using 1024x768, 21.18% are using 1280x1024, 2.19% using 800x600 and the rest is spread out.
I don't think it is possible to make a site viewable to every single user, well it is but you need to ask yourself whether 2% of visitors are worth compromising the experience for the other 98% of your visitors.
greg posted this at 18:51 — 26th June 2008.
He has: 1,581 posts
Joined: Nov 2005
It is possible to serve different CSS stylesheets and HTML depending on the users resolution. But that becomes a complex site just for serving it's parameters to perfectly suit everyone.
For most sites I make, I work with a 970px wide area (or 60em if I'm making it more size adjustable) and align it centrally.
To be honest, anyone in 800x600 resolution or less will be used to scrolling right/left when browsing the internet, I would say for well over half the sites they visit.
I know just because it's 'the norm' doesn't necessarily make it right to do, but there has to be a compromise somewhere in order to decide a width.
In my opinion netsperience, that site you linked is way to small. I use 1360 x 768, and it is a tiny little thing in the corner of my browser.
It's arguable that my res is way below the small percentage margin for resolutions used, but even with 1024 res it's only about half the screen filled.
I think it's perfectly acceptable now to code for a minimum of 1024 screen res. I think it must be acceptable to say about 75-80% of users are on 1024 or higher.
Megan posted this at 18:59 — 26th June 2008.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I'm starting to think that horizontal scrolling for a small percentage of users isn't such a huge crime. If you're talking about 2% of users, then maybe it's okay. There will also be people with screen magnifiers who always see the web that way.
There used to be more problems with designers not being aware of screen resolution issues, which is why a lot of the admonition against horizontal scrolling came up. This doesn't really happen anymore. I think you just need to be aware of your audience and design accordingly.
The other 98% of your visitors have big monitors because they want more screen space. Why not use it? I'm starting to give increasing consideration to the 60% of my visitors who are at resolutions above 1280. What about them? We're going to cater to the 2% at 800 x 600 but not the 60% at higher resolutions?
(yeah, yeah, we don't know that they're maximized. etc. etc. I'm just saying that we need to keep a balanced view of this).
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
webwiz posted this at 02:18 — 27th June 2008.
He has: 629 posts
Joined: May 2007
Between 75% and 100%.
webwiz posted this at 18:31 — 27th June 2008.
He has: 629 posts
Joined: May 2007
Serendipitously, the subject of accommodating a wide variety of browser window widths was discussed yesterday in a Smashing Magazine article.
Looks like a good resource.
Cordially, David
--
delete from internet where user_agent="MSIE" and version < 8;
decibel.places posted this at 20:13 — 27th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Great article, David
I have referenced Smashing Magazine here at TWF too - I think it has excellent resources, for developers as well as designers.
I didn't even know Opera 9.5 has the zoom feature - I just tried it out on the article site.
I do know that Opera 9.5 will crash on my Vista Home Premium laptop when installed in a folder named "Opera" but not when it's in a folder named "Opera951" for example - I've been working with Opera support to track the bug.
I am using a fixed 990px Drupal theme for my personal site (4 Seasons) and a fluid theme (Ability) for the Hudson County Self-Help Center - on smallish resolutions (less than 1280) the fairly large logo will pop up - thinking about best way to deal with it, probably making the left margin a % not fixed is the way...
webwiz posted this at 03:24 — 30th June 2008.
He has: 629 posts
Joined: May 2007
FWIW - Opera has had zoom at least since version 6. It also has "fit to window" and other useful goodies like tabs. Other browsers are just catching up.
Cordially, David
--
delete from internet where user_agent="MSIE" and version < 8;
decibel.places posted this at 23:54 — 30th June 2008.
He has: 1,494 posts
Joined: Jun 2008
Hey!
I just got specs for an Intranet with 640x480 resolution!
Also WSIWYG editor,
Unixos at a Linux serverDrupal 6.2 (sorry most of the modules you need aren't there yet!)
Oh dear, this is going to be fun!
OK it's still in the early planning stages, the doc was forwarded to me by the PM for "suggestions, feasibility and notes" - I had a few comments, all right!
silverwing posted this at 23:23 — 30th June 2008.
He has: 79 posts
Joined: May 2008
Most of my sites are fixed width at 800px to 920px. Perfect for 1024 but you get the horizontal scrollbar on 800. But, if you have an 800 monitor (like my old, old laptop) you fully expect to have to scroll every once in a while on some sites.
~silverwing
zinzinny | Misguided Thoughts | showcaseCMS
Digitoko posted this at 07:29 — 9th July 2008.
They have: 62 posts
Joined: May 2008
I always prefer : 1024x768 pixal But the w3school is say different. I think is is cover up to all.
opdavies posted this at 13:26 — 10th July 2008.
He has: 14 posts
Joined: Jul 2008
I usually use a centered container which is flexible depending on the size of the screen. However, I give it a minimum width of 800px to stop any funny looking layouts!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.