Don't you think its about time for 1024x768?

[GnomeCop]

So this topic is somewhat related to displays. Do you think that webpages optimized for 800x600 should just drop that aging spec and be optimized for AT LEAST 1024x768?
Not talking about any websites specifically, just askign what do you guys think is a best practice sites should follow nowadays?

Of course widescreen resolutions are still catching on so probably almost all sites are gonne be sticking with standard 4:3 aspect ratio resolutions.

The drawbacks of a 800x600 optimized website.... it will show up extremely narrow on that new beautiful lcd you just got. Also if its optimized for 800x600 yet offers dyanmic width, thats more javascipt slowing down the page...
You guys think there are enough non enthusiasts out there to keep 800x600 even on the minds of web designers?

 

[rbV5]

I'm not a fan of a web site taking up all my display real estate...me=no.

 

[akugami]

Bleah, when I view longish content I usually switch to portrait view over landscape. I don't think we really need larger than 800x600 for most web pages.

 

[xtknight]

I think it's time for 1280x960 and sites optimized for widescreen. At least for "Web 2.0".

 

[Sunrise089]

1024 - yes, almost everyone can do it. Widescreen, of course not, since the majority cannot.

 

[ProviaFan]

Sure, optimize for 1024x768, but for the love of all that is holy, do not make things fixed-size to pixel dimensions (especially font sizes!); graceful degredation is a Good Things (tm), which incidentally AnandTech hasn't learned (hence I "help" them out with a usercontent CSS file).

 

[kmmatney]

I agree, except for sites where you download video drivers. I hate it when I have a new video card running 640 x 480 in 16 colors, and its really difficult to navigate a web site to download drivers.

 

[GnomeCop]

hahah the driver download sites issue is interesting, good point.

 

[R3MF]

i think that the ideal width to design sites for is 1280, seeing as so many screens support it:
1280x1024 = 80% (?) of all TFT screens sold
1280x960 = large minority of all CRT screens sold are capable of running this res
1280x800 = large minority of all laptops sold now are capable of displaying this
1280x768 = small number of laptops + large number of LCD TV's
1280x720 = most of the current gen of LCD TV's (excluding the new 1366x768 screens.

the ideal height to design for would be 800 as it is also broadly analogous to the 768 available in many legacy CRT's.

just my thoughts.

 

[R3MF]

on the other hand, 1024 would be excellent because i would then have a 17" dell in portrait mode (therefore 1024 wide) as a satellite to my 2405 purely for explorer and a web browsing.

 

[rstrohkirch]

Originally posted by: R3MF
i think that the ideal width to design sites for is 1280, seeing as so many screens support it:
1280x1024 = 80% (?) of all TFT screens sold
1280x960 = large minority of all CRT screens sold are capable of running this res
1280x800 = large minority of all laptops sold now are capable of displaying this
1280x768 = small number of laptops + large number of LCD TV's
1280x720 = most of the current gen of LCD TV's (excluding the new 1366x768 screens.

the ideal height to design for would be 800 as it is also broadly analogous to the 768 available in many legacy CRT's.

just my thoughts.

Just because they are capable doesn't mean they were being set at that resolution.

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

Plenty of people still use 800x600 screens --> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (scroll down for "Display Resolution" statistics), but that resolution is slowly dying so we should see more 1024x768 websites soon enough.

FYI... http://www.rottentomatoes.com is 1024x768 I think.

 

[Wag]

Screw that. My CRT supports 2048x1536. I say they go for broke...

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I agree, except for sites where you download video drivers. I hate it when I have a new video card running 640 x 480 in 16 colors, and its really difficult to navigate a web site to download drivers.

I tend to download my drivers before swapping out video cards. Call me crazy...

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: R3MF
i think that the ideal width to design sites for is 1280, seeing as so many screens support it:
1280x1024 = 80% (?) of all TFT screens sold
1280x960 = large minority of all CRT screens sold are capable of running this res
1280x800 = large minority of all laptops sold now are capable of displaying this
1280x768 = small number of laptops + large number of LCD TV's
1280x720 = most of the current gen of LCD TV's (excluding the new 1366x768 screens.

the ideal height to design for would be 800 as it is also broadly analogous to the 768 available in many legacy CRT's.

just my thoughts.

Most 14-15in laptops and those 12-13in ultra portables are normally 1024x768 native resolution. An older 17in CRT capable of 1024x768 at a decent refresh rate is not too uncommon as well. Many older folks like 1024x768 resolution just to be able to see things on 17in (and above) displays as well. I think 1024x768 should be a good baseline.

 

[mrzed]

Over half the LCD monitors in my office (all 17" except my dual 204T's) use 800*600 because the user thinks everything is "too small" otherwise.

If this is the case for tft screens at 17' (basically corporate standard now), why would any web designer not use that as a baseline (Geek sites notwithstanding)?

 

[Childs]

800x600 is fine. That way I can have a web page up and another app at the same time side by side.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: R3MF
i think that the ideal width to design sites for is 1280, seeing as so many screens support it:
1280x1024 = 80% (?) of all TFT screens sold
1280x960 = large minority of all CRT screens sold are capable of running this res
1280x800 = large minority of all laptops sold now are capable of displaying this
1280x768 = small number of laptops + large number of LCD TV's
1280x720 = most of the current gen of LCD TV's (excluding the new 1366x768 screens.

the ideal height to design for would be 800 as it is also broadly analogous to the 768 available in many legacy CRT's.

just my thoughts.

just because 80% of the screens currently sold can support 1280x1024 doesn't mean that everyone is buying one of these monitors. what about the ol' folks using the 15" LCD or 17" CRT? It'll be a strain on their eyes.

My input is that websites should begin experimenting with 1024x768, but should keep the 800x600 settings now. Maybe beta pages.

 

[hans007]

i think 800x600 is fine.

there are plenty of people who still use 1024x768 as their full desktop resolution and i like many do not like to use my whole monitor.

my test box has a 1024x768 lcd, and so do LOTs of laptops. i also dont see if there would be that much benefit, most websites do not even use all the screen real estate of 800x600 anyway.

 

[framerateuk]

Personally, i havent designed any website for anytihng below 1024x768 for a long time. When i ran en emulation page in 1999 to 2001 i had some javascript which sent people with resolutions lower than 1024 to a seperate page with smaller images (i was using frames at the time, when they were trendy to use ). But since that page ive always made pages for a res of at least 1024. If people have a res lower than that then should should be used to having websites display incorrectly

(i do note that my websites are usually quite arty and full of image and design based stuff, so a higher res makes my work look a lot better).

 

[GnomeCop]

hmm thats interesting, so you used javascript to detect resolution and just send ppl to a different site....
so no javascript to allow dynamic resizing of the page right? I like to avoid that because it slows down the page... bloat