800x600 is gone
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- fate_0
I disagree with the "Laptops==800x600".
The last 2 laptops I've had couldn't even go lower than 800x600. They've ditched 800x600 a while ago.
- arinya0
900x700 Lets start it. NOW!!!
- mg330
You know, I also see the limitation as a positive thing with regard to content. Think about it it, if you've given yourself a smaller size overall, you're going to work harder (maybe) to make sure the design and layout is perfect, everything in it's place.
With a larger layout, you might sacrifice what may have been a clean, condensed, minimal layout for someting larger and with way more areas for your eyes to go. Items of importance, then, can get lost unless you've categorized all that properly.
- kelpie0
yeah, what the last 4 guys or so said
- jevad0
what 8x6 is gone because the fucking economist have redesigned to 1024?
I think not
- witch0
with the rapid growth of laptops, tablet pcs, wireless devices, e-books and etc expect an average user's resolution shift back to 800x600
- ETM0
Even as people on desktops move away from 800 x 600, there are still many people using laptops, that stick them to 800x600. It' s still going to be a bit longer until 800x600 is dead.
- mg330
What sucks for me is that the site I'm redoing at work, for our law firm, might have to stick with 800x600 becuase our office computer environment (thin-client terminal server) has everyone by default at 800x600. Individual users don't know how to change it.
Luckily I'm on a standalone.But in building the site, people there are going to use it, and it's like I know people are going to complain and say "This doesn't fit in my window."
- e-pill0
dammit i use 640 480 still!!!!
:)
- Bluejam0
the economist site is horrible!
- Nairn0
5 vodafone adverts on the homepage? I love that there's so much space, but I wish they'd do more with it - the Magazine's very well laid out, with easy to access information - that site, although nearly there, feels like it's trying to give the user too much, too quick.
Still, die 800*600 - DIE!
- craic_whore0
ribit — http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmon…
the second page has tables of the best sizes. This is quite an old article though so no Safari and there's no opera either.
- toe_knee0
30% still on 800x600.
I designed a site to 1024 a month ago and all that space scared me. Instead of
"where the fuck will this go?"
it was
"What the fuck will we put there?"
- fate_0
that goes without saying, stuff. ;)
- stuff0
Shame the design is totally shit.
- fate_0
If 2advanced is 1024x768, then you ALL should be!
(btw, I think site validation is the biggest load of geek wank since the term "webmaster" was invented)
- Fariska0
We're looking at moving from a 710 fixed width to something that fits easily in 1024 width...but is there any sort of best width? 940, 950? (Economist is 1000)
ribit
(Oct 10 05, 01:56)Dreamwaver says 955. 1000 is enough if you don't have scrollbars.
- Typographica0
Let's try that again:
It's strange that they (economist) go that wide. The content doesn't seem to require it. Even the large banner at top has room on either side.
- Typographica0
It's strange that the go that wide. The content doesn't seem to require it. Even the large banner at top has room on their side.
- ribit0
Me either...always got other stuff I'm doing at same time... Lots of our customers are on 1600 or 1920 width.. I assume they dont have our site fullscreen. We're considering 1024x768 as a minimum requirement, and larger popup images too, rather than holding everything back because of a few people on 800x600.