800 x 600
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- hUtCh
I know I'm gonna get a slating for this, but can someone pleeaaassssee give me an excuse to drop the need to design websites with these constraints.
I've been looking for stats on google but gave up having trawled through cr*p trying to find them.
Basically, I'm doing a music review/news site and it's got a lot of content. The client is moaning at the width which is currently at 760px. Can I go wider? NT has!
Regards.
- mrdobolina0
I wouldnt sll out those 800*600 peeps just yet.
I try to design for the user, not for the client.
- hUtCh0
Thanks Ganon....
Bugger!
- shellie0
if you go wider.. mroe than 40 % of the people looking at it wont get all the content without having to scroll both un and down and left-right.
its silly 800x600 is plenty of room. get creative.
- unknown0
also, some users prefer 800x600 even if their setup is capable of more - easier to read / bigger text etc...
- hUtCh0
Okay, so 44% use 800 x 600, but who's to say those folks aren't spotting half-blind scientists who only look at text based sites to read online journals? It's usually the old codgers who stick with the old wares, afraid of change.
Does anyone have deeper stats? Would I be wrong to assume that the majority of peeps looking at a funky young music site will be pretty up-to-date with things?
- unknown0
yes you would be wrong.
design for people, not for designers.
- Bluejam0
If the site is going to house a lot of content (and i'm pressuming there's gonna be a lot of text) then 800x 600 is suitable when you consider type size (11 point) and line length (13-15 words per line).
This screen size is also suitable for printing, something which users might do considering the content.
- hUtCh0
Thanks Bluejam, hadn't thought of the printing issue!
- benfal990
http://www.echoecho.com/
The source for that.
-----------------------------
Stats derived from:
370.000.000 hits at
+500.000 different sites
during Feb, 2003
-----------------------------
Look at the SURFER STATS at your right-bottom.
- hUtCh0
Hey, cool link Benfal. Will bookmark.
However, it just confirms what everyone else is saying.....
8..0...0....x.....6......0...
Thanks all!
- freshmode0
hutch...
You said they are usually older folks... afraid of change.
Consider the people who live with these people who might view the site and have to deal with the fact that the owner of the computer is afraid of change. If a family has 1 computer and it is old. Then what are you going to do. Not everyone within the market you are talking about (assuming 16-30) lives on their own and owns a newer computer. Sucks, but I say work with 800 x 600.
Then again, making the user happy over the client might mean you will lose the client in the future although I doubt it. If they really want you to go larger, just go larger. What can you do. That is what you are paid for right? To do what the client says.
just make sure it looks right.
You should sell them the concept of 2 versions. Charge them more for the second version and then use a browser detect. If they really want to go large, they will do it. Sell it as a test to see how many people that viewed their site are on higher spec machines.
Then you can pay me my fees for giving you this idea....
have fun. make us proud!!
now get back to work
- unfittoprint0
unfortunately 800x600 is still a standard, but steadily rising to the loveable 1024x768.
- davetufts0
NEWSFLASH****
there are about 8 million ways to make a site that expands with the browser... even with a min width of 760.
- ribit0
your users may not be average.
(for example our online magazine only has 16% using 800x600 or smaller)
BUT the people with the big screens don't usually have the browser full-screen...so you should be designing around 800x600 anyway...
- sexypixel0
for huge content sites use percentages instead of pixel widths, but you need to design to a minimum of 720 wide to allow the page to print.
have all important content about the 450 pixel marke also.
- 4cY0
"but you need to design to a minimum of 720 wide to allow the page to print. "
that'd be maximum, not?
:)
- ribit0
and if it's a maximum, why?
- sexypixel0
its all too confusing for me at 7am
- davetufts0
ribit, your site is cardesignnews, right?
i think i worked with you ages ago - i wrote a perl banner rotation script and installed it on that site.