Zooiblog

Search the Zooiblog

Follow the discussion below and participate.

Support this site.

You on 800×600? Die!

57

Or not? I need some stats for the redesign, and want to know how many people are on 800×600 (or how few) and why. Tell me, friend, what resolution are you on, and can I convince you to use at least 1024×768? (Stylegala’s approach is quite cool. If you’re able to use >1024×768, please do so.)

Why? I want to use more screen for the redesign. It’ll make life easier. Oh, and while we’re at it, tell me what resolution you are on and on what screen size, just as a QotD.

Posted on 2005-01-05 while devouring lunch.

57 comments

  1. chuck 2005-01-05 #1

    1280 × 1024 and wouldn’t have it any other way :)

  2. Robbert Broersma 2005-01-05 #2

    1920 × 1200 and wouldn’t have it any other way :)

  3. Rogier 2005-01-05 #3

    @ Robbert: LOL

    I’m also on 1280 × 1024, but I always have my Sage feedreader sidebar open, so therefore; could you maken a design which fits nicely on 1080 × 1024? :P

  4. Etienne 2005-01-05 #4

    1024×768, 15 inch. My desire to have it another way worries my wallet ;)

  5. Vidar 2005-01-05 #5

    1152×864

  6. Gabriel Mihalache 2005-01-05 #6

    1280 × 1024 and wouldn’t have it any other way :)

    1158 × 768 on the PowerBook (max. resolution of the display, so don’t boo me)

    1024×768 is THE target to use especially since most of your visitors are web professionals.

    OR, you could go “fluid” and spend the nights over the next year tweaking max-width and its hacks :)

  7. Rob 2005-01-05 #7

    Oh Gabriel the Naive ;) I’ve worked on that before, but it’s not perfect. Do tell me if you’d like to see my second throw at it :P

    I’m going for fixed, maybe with some coolness, but fixed is good enough for me.

  8. Ben 2005-01-05 #8

    I’m on 1152×768, but my Firefox width is about 1040px (I have GKrellM on the side to see what my system is doing). I think that with your audience here you could safely ignore 800×600. I’ve been thinking about that myself, I haven’t needed it yet, but I may take one of my next designs into another direction...

  9. Bojhan 2005-01-05 #9

    I am on my PDA? 240×320 pixels. Well on my normal computer just 1152×768.

  10. zara 2005-01-05 #10

    1158 × 768 on my laptop, 1600 × 1200 on my desktop (with a 20” monitor - soon to be 2 monitors as soon as I get my hands on a pesky adaptor)

  11. Mathias Bynens 2005-01-05 #11

    Moi on 800×600? Pas de chemin. Even my site doesn’t support such low resolutions.

    Go for it. The future is now.

  12. Jonathan Snook 2005-01-05 #12

    Well, I usually read your site from my handy RSS reader and therefore, your design has no effect on me. Muahahahaha! Okay, maybe evil laugh wasn’t necessary. Anyways, on those times I do hop to the site, I view things on a 1600×1200 screen. With sidebars and taskbars, usable space is probably around 1300×900. Should be ample. :)

  13. Charles Martin 2005-01-05 #13

    Well, I’ve pretty much stuck to 1024×768... however, based on this post, I gave 1280×1024 a shot... my eyes decided to not cooperate with such a setup (after all, it is only a 17” monitor) so I’ll have to stick to my current settings and wait until I have a better monitor before I delve into those nether regions of screen size.

  14. Mark Wubben 2005-01-05 #14

    2048 * 1024... but perhaps you could make a fluid layout? Otherwise, it’s your own blog, just ban the 800’s!

  15. Mark Wubben 2005-01-05 #15

    Whoah.. typo there ;-) 1280 * 1024 I meant. I should also learn to refresh a page when I come back after two hours... sorry for the redundant ideas ;-)

  16. Turnip 2005-01-05 #16

    1280 × 1024 and I’d have it another way if I had a bigger screen ;)

  17. Kris Van den Bergh 2005-01-05 #17

    Just 1024*768 like most people have. And why? Well, I don’t like the huge buttons that I see when I’m on 800*600.

  18. Indranil 2005-01-05 #18

    1024 X 768 and that’s the way to go. ;)

  19. David 2005-01-05 #19

    1024*768

    And that’s the highest my laptop will go, so don’t you dare make your site for anything more :-P

  20. Leighonigar 2005-01-05 #20

    I’m on 1280×1024 on my main Mac, 1024×768 on a whole bunch of other comps.

  21. Seth Thomas Rasmussen 2005-01-05 #21

    Though I think the fraction of 800×600 users out there is small and dwindling, I think you should design for the web and not against it.

  22. Rob 2005-01-05 #22

    Psssscht, Seth! Hey... ( | )

    No really, you’re right, but I want to know if my direct audience has any problems with a layout that marginally exceeds the width of 800 pixels for the sake of design.

  23. Jonathan Snook 2005-01-05 #23

    Seth: While it’s been argued before, having a horizontal scrollbar is hardly designing against the web. Your site, for example, becomes quite unusable in Firefox 1.0 (and I’d imagine other browsers) at a screen width of 500px. As a user, I’d rather a horizontal scrollbar than one word per line paragraphs.

    Either way, with div-based layouts, at least I can shut off styles and still access either layout, no matter your design choices.

  24. Seth Thomas Rasmussen 2005-01-05 #24

    Rob,
    Did you just point your bum at me? I understand your querying, though. Sorta just giving you a hard time, but you know how I’m not, as well.

    Snooker,
    I never said that horizontal scrolling is designing against the web. Targeting a very specific user agent rendering is, however. Giving many options and accounting for as many as you can by default, like my site does, is not.

    And a 500px screen test... nigga, plz. Disable my styles and move on, then...

  25. Anne 2005-01-05 #25

    Fortunately my feed reader does not discriminate. I had to fire this up in Lynx to be able to answer the post. Terrible! ;-)

  26. Seth Thomas Rasmussen 2005-01-05 #26

    P.S. You wanna talk usability in FF? Try sizing up the text with your site, there, Snooky. Your fixed dimension tabs(which expand downward and not up, for some reason), not to mention some of your fixed dimension headings, don’t come out too well... whereas my baby’s silky-smooth...

    Like a baby’s bottom, Snooky... like a baby’s bottom.

  27. Jonathan Snook 2005-01-05 #27

    Seth: Oh no you didn’t just talk smack about my site! I’ll bust a cap in yo’ azz! Like a baby’s bottom, you’re full of .... ahem, wow, I’m really bad at talking gangsta. fo’ sheezy.

    Yes, you’ve uncovered my laziness in developing a fully scalable site design.

    Your point seemed to be that designing for a specific layout width was an example of designing against the web. That is the point I disagreed with.

    I think we can both agree that no design can be maintained under every circumstance.

  28. Seth Thomas Rasmussen 2005-01-05 #28

    Senor Snook,
    I’m not really one for talking “gangsta” either. Usually only as a joke, and even those times are sparse, as they should be. (Snoop rhymes every other word with -izzle now, which is just cheating, but I digress...)

    It is oversimplifying to say that designing for a specific output is designing against the web, but it’s not far off. The web is at its strongest, its most useful, when it is simply a conduit for dissemination and/or transformation of information. When we have these traits indepedent of any specific implementation, medium or rendering, I think we’ve got a good thing going.

    I do absolutely agree that no design can be maintained under every circumstance, of course.

    It only remains for me to note that I really dig your design, Jonathan, and you’ve taken care of a great many more details than most. But you brought the pain, so I had to rebut... ;)

  29. Seth Thomas Rasmussen 2005-01-06 #29

    Oh, and 1024×768, by the way... sometimes the odd 1152×864...

  30. Rob Lewis 2005-01-06 #30

    Got a brand new 17inch TFT for Christmas, so I’m on 1280 × 1024.

  31. Roger Johansson 2005-01-06 #31

    1680×1050, but my browser window is usually somewhere around 900 pixels wide. And I don’t like having to make it wider.

  32. Gabriel Mihalache 2005-01-06 #32

    640×480, the default resolution when you install Win95. :-)

  33. Mathias Bynens 2005-01-06 #33

    :o I hope you’re kidding, Gabriel.

  34. Charl van Niekerk 2005-01-06 #34

    800×600 and it sucks. But lack of funds here, so be kind to the less fortunate in Africa.

  35. Veerle Pieters 2005-01-06 #35

    I am at 1600×1024. Also take the figures here with a grain of salt since most visitors are designers of some sort and most of them run larger screen resolutions :-) I suspect that an ordinary site still has it share of 800×600 visitors.

  36. Rob 2005-01-06 #36

    Mathias, he better be kidding!

    Charl, work on that man! ;)

    Veerle, I know, I know. But hey, I’m a people’s person :P I want to know what resolution the totally cool people use that regularly come here or read my feeds, and well, I hope I can compromise, but I prefer to make a layout 1000px wide :P (Sorry, just being the ‘non-cramming’ designer there.)

  37. Andrew Hume 2005-01-06 #37

    1024 × 768.

    All your asking is can you go a little bit over 800 × 600 right?

    Opera is my main browser, and currently I like the fact I can browse most sites with a largish left tool bar open. Of course, with wider fixed widths I have to close it.

    Just a thought.

  38. Ben Pickles 2005-01-06 #38

    1600 × 1200 but i tend to have my (visible) browser dimensions at around 900 × 600

  39. Arthur! 2005-01-06 #39

    1280×1024 here

    On a different note, I don’t think you should design for 800×600. Technology evolves and I myself would design new websites for 1024×768 if were to design a new website.

    BTW, i’m switching to dual screens soon, which makes life on computers a lot less complicated for me. :)

  40. Veerle Pieters 2005-01-06 #40

    @Rob: If it is for this site then 1000px will be safe bet ;-) Or you could use a style switcher and target several resolutions. Just a thought ;-)

  41. Matt Hampel 2005-01-06 #41

    1600×1200 here. Idea: you might want to go the ESPN route and make the content readable at 600×800 and have any other columns drop off the side.

  42. Joseph Lindsay 2005-01-06 #42

    1280×1024 on my work 17” flatscreen (very cool)
    1024×768 at home on my 17” crt

    Check out Cameron Adams Resolution dependent layout (article, demo)

  43. Konstantin KÀfer 2005-01-06 #43

    My resolution is 1152×864. However, I think inbetween you can design for 1024×768 as there are only few computers with a lower screen resolution.

    Just my 2 ct. ;-)

  44. Colin D. Devroe 2005-01-07 #44

    1400×900 iMac 17”

  45. Janek 2005-01-07 #45

    1152×864.

  46. Vidar 2005-01-07 #46

    hehehehh Seth called me odd :P

  47. Chu Yeow 2005-01-07 #47

    At home I’m on 1280 × 768. At work, I have a microscopic 15 inch monitor and sometimes it’s at 800 × 600, other times at 1024 × 768 (if I can stand the 60Hz refresh rate... my eyes! my beautiful eyes!)

    One thing though, I don’t have Internet at work. Heh, go figure.

  48. Hayo 2005-01-07 #48

    1280×1024 and 1024×768 and 1024×768. I use one dual screen setup, so i WILL test your site at 2304×768.

    I often use the ff dev bar to look at sites at 800×600 and 640×480.

  49. Fernando Dunn II 2005-01-08 #49

    home = 1152 × 764
    work = 1024 × 768

  50. matthew 2005-01-08 #50

    1280×854 (15” PowerBook)

  51. rash 2005-01-08 #51

    home > 1280 × 1024
    work > 1024 × 768
    mobil > SE P900

  52. Jeroen Mulder 2005-01-09 #52

    Laptop: 1024×768 - 15”
    Desktop: 1280×960 - 19”

    I’ve never understood the 1280×1024 deal. It isn’t a 4:3 resolution .. or is that just me? Hmm..

  53. nerkles 2005-01-09 #53

    1440×900 @ home, 1280×1024 @ work

  54. craig 2005-01-12 #54

    640 × 480 :)

    Nah, I run 1280 × 1024 on two 19” monitors.

  55. Indranil 2005-01-12 #55

    I run on 320 × 240. Serious. Win3.1

  56. Bas 2005-01-24 #56

    It depends: sometimes I’m on 1024×768, sometimes on 1200×900 and hopefully soon on 1920×900. But don’t you DARE force me to maximize my browser. I didn’t want to upgrade my screen-real estate for nothing... (And no, it’s not to comfort all these over-eager redesigners. ;-)

  57. Mike 2005-02-12 #57

    1152×786

    I HATE PEOPLE WITH 800×600 !!!!

Participate, yes!

(Rock out with Textile; it's what the cool people use!)