800 wide
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- Arvizu
why do this anymore? I'm not a web designer, so I really don't know the answer.
- dMullins0
For anal bosses because of 1-4% of people.
- i once had an anal boss. 100% anal in that he was a complete asshole.Coffeemaker
- why didn't you file a sexual harassment claim? ;)OSFA
- Arvizu0
honestly? Is the percentage that low?
- robotron3k0
for iphone legibility.
- dMullins0
http://www.w3schools.com/browser…
January 2009 800x600 - 4%
- utopian0
800 wide, circa 2004
- 23kon0
have you ever heard of screen-space being referred to as "real estate"?
well if your client doesnt have a large enough budget then then they will probably only be able to afford an 800 pixel wide site.
for clients with larger budgets who can afford to push the boat out then they might want to investin something as wide as 980pixels
- lawlzflashbender
- that's funnyversion3
- i digg thisTerminal27
- neverblink0
so I guess fluid designs arn't as hot as they were a year ago?
- set0
I go 950px cos I'm a rebel.
I say fuck anyone who is still running resolutions lower than that, we have to move forward some how and catering for the old will only hold everything back.
- Gordy220
I think it's pretty much gone the other way now; monitors / resolution are too big / high to have fluid sites.
I tend to code semi fluid from 950 - about 1200.
Oh, and fuck 8/6
- true, but does someone with a 1600+ wide screen surf fullscreen?neverblink
- surprisingly, yes they doflashbender
- most people click fullscreen making the frame bigger because they want everything biggerversion3
- there is a feeling that it is too small in comparison to the desktopversion3
- no they don't. Not the clever ones anyway.ribit
- i'm speaking of average possibly even ie usersversion3
- OSFA0
so, what would be considered the standard now?
- version30
960
- jimbojones0
wow, 1% still have 256 colour monitors (January 2009)
- ie. grandma grandpops who bought "computers" when they first came outfyoucher1
- version30
960
480 480
320 320 320
240 240 240 240
192 192 192 192 192
160 160 160 160 160 160
120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96- no gutters?jimbojones
- put your padding in the columnsversion3
- dMullins0
960 by what? 700?
- version30
960 x 600 (610 tops) to stay above the fold is my m.o.
- fuck the fold, people invented mousewheels for a reasonjimbojones
- i like all my images and headlines to be seen without being cut off before interactionversion3
- I think the index page is nice to be kept 100% visible, and then other pages scroll.set
- i tend to agree - not cutting off headlines and main images - at least on home/landing if possible.bulletfactory
- bulletfactory0
i usually design for 960 plus, but it depends on the client and purpose/audience. Page height is secondary IMO - Everyone is comfortable with vert. scrolling; designing above the 'fold' is a term used by the computer illiterate marketing types. Not to say I would have a giant image cover the entire screen with content and nav. far below, but i'm not going to cram everything above 500px either.
- rainman0
What's the max number for designing a 1280 site?
- i'd say 1240-1246, may be a golden number in thereversion3
- 1200 divides up quite nice thoughversion3
- 1200 allows for a fantastic grid! 12 or 16 cols.bulletfactory
- version30
it's not that I want all content above the fold, i like all my images and headlines to be seen without being cut off before user interaction is all
- ceiling_cat0
Tell your boss apple.com, youtube.com, facebook.com are more than 800 pixels wide