Please participate

[Raja]

Myself, mostly on 1280 x 1024. I test as low as 800 x 600 to remove the dreaded horizontal scroll, just wondering what the consensus is here at the D.O

[FTIGraphix]

Hi!!

1024x768

[imageconstrux]

It might be valuable to discern between designers and contest holders - my bet is that my res of 1024x768 is as big as any contest holders (I bet most are 800x600), while I know the designers tend to like to pack as many pixels as they can onto the screen.

[Raja]

Originally posted by imageconstrux@Jun 30 2003, 08:41 AM
It might be valuable to discern between designers and contest holders - my bet is that my res of 1024x768 is as big as any contest holders (I bet most are 800x600), while I know the designers tend to like to pack as many pixels as they can onto the screen.
Yes, your right, that's why I posted here and not in the designer's forum. I too, thought that 800 x 600 would be the resolution (default) common to most contest holders, but, it's seems as though these( yourself included ) peopel are quite internet and computer savvy and being business owners, some even owning a fleet of vehicles, that they would afford themselves state of the art computers or at least something not so antiquated, as in higher res machines...

just wondering if trends and conceptions are shifting in this new wave of internet users

[Palmer]

I too, thought that 800 x 600 would be the resolution (default) common to most contest holders, but, it's seems as though these( yourself included ) peopel are quite internet and computer savvy and being business owners, some even owning a fleet of vehicles, that they would afford themselves state of the art computers or at least something not so antiquated, as in higher res machines...

Guess I'm old school then :P

[marengo]

1024*768 32bit. I test my works for all resolutions, but i really hate :P 800*600 and my monitor not so big for 1280*1024 (17'' only). :)

[crimsondesigner]

I prefer to use 1024x768 but will test in 800x600 to be sure that things fit.

Erika

[Zoe]

My res is set to 1280 x 1024 to have a bigger wrok space. Though I do not browse full screen unless I am reading the news etc... I also design make sure my designs work in 800 x 600 res...

[ElKootcho]

1152x870

[imageconstrux]

ODR -

You are correct in that if there is a toy that I can even remotely tie into the business (i.e. write off), I'll buy it. My main work PC has a 19" monitor.

[DenRomano]

800 x 600

I am getting old and can't see as well anymore plus I have mono-vision contacts which means I see far away in 1 eye and close up in the other.

For a programmer that spends 10 hours a day writing code it is prety hard on the eyes.

[platinum]

It's not time to move on designing for 800x600 if that's what you're asking here :D Huge percentage of people still use it. But maybe in 3-5 years you can give it the boot ;)

[Raja]

out of 21 people who voted so far, only 2 use 800 x 600, my guess would have been 10%.

I think this resolution will deprecate itself soon and I don't think a huge percentage are currently using it in North America, contrary to ill informed websites posting irrelevant and outdated browser statistics

[Palmer]

I'm surprised it's so low. I'm using the latest greatest Dell using WinXP and this is the way it came. I haven't changed any of the settings. Is it because I'm on a 17" monitor?

I put it on a different setting and everything just looks so small.

[sparkie]

I'm on 800x600.. mainly because I'm quite nearsighted and like to work on things "close up" I tried 1024x768 but got tired of the squinting and the glare.

[platinum]

around 30-40% of people use it still :) Too high of a percentage to even consider dumping it yet ;)

[Raja]

Originally posted by platinum@Jul 4 2003, 09:51 AM
around 30-40% of people use it still :) Too high of a percentage to even consider dumping it yet ;)
Hi Platinum

I've conducted my own research on this via forums, polls and the like, and I have never come across such high of percentage, of course I could be way off the mark. My aim is to find out the most common resolution used by a potential client, not a website guest. I've been to generic websites that post "browser statistics" and they all say something around the percentile you mentioned. However, upon investigation, I find the polling is too general and having no real "target market". There is no real substance to the way they populate their data. In that regard, since your are sounding very sure, I ask you:

Where do you get your information?

How can you be sure of the integrity of the statistics?

About 800x600 users, I wouldn't consider "dumping" them, but I would cater more to the more popular resolution, which in my reasearch of my target markets, has been as the above poll results indicate

[platinum]

No, the idea isn't to cater for the most popular, it's more or less the most popular which has a large userbase.
Netscape 4.xx has less that 1% of people using it, and people still consider it on occasion.

Let me ask a question though - who do you forums cater for? If it's a forum with primarity designers visiting, then the results are going to be waaay skewed :) Plenty of people use it still. If the petrol stations said "ok, there are more people using unleaded petrol then leaded - so we're going to stop selling leaded" it would not be a wise choice on their behalf ;)

as for stats -
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
or let google do the talking ;) http://www.google.com.au/search?q=browser+...le+Search&meta= (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=browser+resolution+statistics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Sure - if you run a site called "1024by768monitors.com" which caters only to that res, or are devoloping an intranet site where you can be sure everyone is at the res. go for it :) If it's a graphics design forum visited by graphic designers only (or something along those lines) you could almost get away with it too.

The reason why, is that many government/school/etc situations have graphics cards or monitors which are simply not suited to higher resolutions. anything above 800x600 looks too small for most people on a 15" monitor. Those with 17"'ers could probably get used to it after a while at 1024x768.

[Raja]

Originally posted by platinum@Jul 4 2003, 08:08 PM
No, the idea isn't to cater for the most popular, it's more or less the most popular which has a large userbase.
Netscape 4.xx has less that 1% of people using it, and people still consider it on occasion.

Let me ask a question though - who do you forums cater for? If it's a forum with primarity designers visiting, then the results are going to be waaay skewed :) Plenty of people use it still. If the petrol stations said "ok, there are more people using unleaded petrol then leaded - so we're going to stop selling leaded" it would not be a wise choice on their behalf ;)

as for stats -
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
or let google do the talking ;) http://www.google.com.au/search?q=browser+...le+Search&meta= (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=browser+resolution+statistics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Sure - if you run a site called "1024by768monitors.com" which caters only to that res, or are devoloping an intranet site where you can be sure everyone is at the res. go for it :) If it's a graphics design forum visited by graphic designers only (or something along those lines) you could almost get away with it too.

The reason why, is that many government/school/etc situations have graphics cards or monitors which are simply not suited to higher resolutions. anything above 800x600 looks too small for most people on a 15" monitor. Those with 17"'ers could probably get used to it after a while at 1024x768.
The two references you gave were the most obvious ones. Been there done that. I was hoping you could provide some hardcore evidence to your claim. W3's stats are from visitors to their site (programmers). Not my potential clients.
I'm talking about target markets, business owners, like here at D.O. And no, I havn't posed this question on any designer forums, obviously not what I'm looking for.

At any rate, if I am still out in the a dark on this, thanks for your input :)

[Scott McPherson]

1900 x 1200

23" Apple HD Display

[platinum]

Originally posted by ondarox@Jul 5 2003, 07:50 AM
W3's stats are from visitors to their site (programmers). Not my potential clients.
I'm talking about target markets, business owners, like here at D.O.  And no, I havn't posed this question on any designer forums, obviously not what I'm looking for.
I see where you're coming from, and I did think about the "programmer" aspect of it, they use higer resolutions just as much as designers :) (so it those results hold true - the "normal" surfer stats for 800x600 would be infact a greater %'age).

If you are aiming this at a particular site - it's probably easiest to conduct a poll (or add it into your statistics) the res they are at to see what your visitors mainly use :) Business owners are MORE likely to be using 800x600 IMO than almost any other category. why? because in general (from my dealing with business owners) they are usually older than your your average "employee" and don't actually use their computers for much else than business type work, so resolution is the last thing they care about (if they even know you can adjust it!). **massive generalization ;) and I'm not really refering to internet business oweners here.

But, yes, by all means, conduct some kind of survey on the site in question. :)

[davemaxwell]

<!--QuoteBegin-Raja+Jul 2 2003, 10:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raja @ Jul 2 2003, 10:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> out of 21 people who voted so far, only 2 use 800 x 600, my guess would have been 10%.
[/b][/quote]
2 out of 21 would be 10%. I would say that number is significantly higher.

I use 1024x768, but I find my customers still use primarily 800x600 so it can be fun (especially when they want to use hard-widths and trying to convince them that other people DON'T use those resolutions.

And like I told one of my customers the other day when they said that only 5% of their people use a certain browser "If you've got 100 customers, that's only five people. If you've got 1000, it's not 50. And 10,000 it's 500. Studies have shown that for every person that has a bad experience, they'll tell AT LEAST 3 people (some studies go as high as 7) so now you're dealing with 20/100, 200/1,000, 2,000/10,000, etc). Much higher percentage of potential clients getting pushed away, isn't it?"

[designmarket]

1280 x 1024 here.. optimising for min 800 at fixed width of 760 to cater for macs.
anything less, yup, they can go upgrade :)

[geofharries]

I use a 13" monitor set at 640 x 480 on Mac OS 7.

geof

[designmarket]

sorry geoff.. you are not catered for.. minimum that is a comfortable design is 800. :ph34r:

But if you switch to a text browser, then yes I can help you :) How many designers do not consider that?

How many of you view the sites you create in text browsers?

How many validate via w3c?

How many check cross browser and on a mac?

Designing for user friendliness and accessability for visitors goes well beyond screen resolution, IMO.. :)

[Eagle]

<!--QuoteBegin-Palmer+Jul 2 2003, 03:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Palmer @ Jul 2 2003, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I put it on a different setting and everything just looks so small.[/b][/quote]
Heheh, things do appear smaller but they are in fact the same size...I'd recommend moving to at least 1024x768 - it just gives you more space to work in!

I work at 1280x960 btw, an option not in the poll above! :rolleyes:

For info: monitor resolution is 96dpi on PCs, 72dpi on Macs...[spits]!
*

[geofharries]

sarcasm is fun :)

Nah, I rock OS X with a 17" Studio Display set at 1280 x 1024. Although we do have a box here running OS 7 and many old iMac's in the accounting dept., but I don't go near those except for a little trip down memory lane.

In regards to text browsers, I have Lynx installed but rarely use it besides basic testing. I always validate my code, both css and xhtml through the W3C validators...doesn't mean it's not full of hacks for lovely Win/IE folk though.

I check all my sites on Mac OS 8-10, Windows 98+, and Linux, even though the former uses Mozilla. Browsers run the gamut, but I don't bother supporting the old stuff unless I have to, like Netscape 4+, Opera 6 or IE 5. Those get an upgrade page...pow! Get with the times.

geof

[Raja]

<!--QuoteBegin-davemaxwell+Oct 1 2003, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (davemaxwell @ Oct 1 2003, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Raja+Jul 2 2003, 10:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raja @ Jul 2 2003, 10:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> out of 21 people who voted so far, only 2 use 800 x 600, my guess would have been 10%.
[/b][/quote]
2 out of 21 would be 10%. [/b][/quote]
I meant what I would have guessed is what the poll indicated at that time, poor grammer, people are used to that by me

For more business and heavy content based sites, its probably safest to go with min 775 + liquid.

There is a lot of new chrome being added to browsers these days (google toolbar etc..). People are also increasing the height of their task bars...I sure am

task bar (http://webfellaz.com/tbar.gif)

[Michael]

Impressive Raja :blink:

[Eagle]

<!--QuoteBegin-Raja+Oct 1 2003, 09:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raja @ Oct 1 2003, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a lot of new chrome being added to browsers these days (google toolbar etc..). People are also increasing the height of their task bars...I sure am

task bar (http://webfellaz.com/tbar.gif)
[/b][/quote]
'Zat 'WindowBlinds' I see there? Or is it XP?

:tup:

Mine is only two 'blocks' high but I have mine on autohide... ;)
*

[designmarket]

Now, that is a toolbar! egads :lol:

Are you protecting your system against spyware & scumware with some of the stuff you have going on there Raja?

Also,, the posters in this thread are more likely to have high end systems and large resolution screens. (so in my opinion it is not giving a true cross section)

It really depends on the target audience, but I am really surprised sometimes when monitoring statistics across multiple sites how many are on old browsers & smaller resolutions..

Some target markets it would be a huge chunk out of the market share not to cater for them.

[hotnuts21]

I saw some reports recently (on that old stuff they call paper) which had been carried out by some independant body in the UK. Basically there report stated that out of most web users the standard screen is still 800x600, if I remember where I read it I will try and find it for you.

However, it depends on what you need the stats for,if its for your own sites, then the best way of finding out is looking at your own stats for your site, even the basic stats packages will tell you browser size. This is then a targetted piece of info for YOUR audience. You can see my own stats by visitingmy site here (http://www.formulaframed.com) going to the bottom of the page and clicking on the black square in the bottom left hand corner, then click on system tracking. My site caters for the 'general' web user but as you can see goes against the norm and shows 1024x768 as the higher screen res. However some things to take into consideration about these is that for 6 months only users from sitepoint forums, web master forums, os commerce and the like visited the site, most of which would have higher screen resolutions. So the stats are skewed from the start, but 800x600 is a close second,and from following my stats and monitoring where they come from (I also have 2 other stats packages I analyse) I would say the average web user is using 800x600.

If you are designing a site, the best way to design is to design for a 1024x768 site but in liquid design, this way it is fully optimized for 1024x768 but still looks good in 800x600. This is very important for generic sites, as someone mentioned a bad site will get spread around a lot quicker.

Although 800x600 is currently the norm, this is changing nearly all computers sold these days come with the res set at 1024x768 and a lot of companys include a 17" monitor with the 1024x768 res.

A few years down the line and 1024 will be the norm, but in the meantime for most sites ignoring 800x600 and you might as well throw money away. I notice a lot of designs on here that work well at 800 but not at 1024 because they are so good graphically they dont stretch or are not liquid enough!!

The above is mainly for generic sites, but if your audience is more targeted then it can depend. Css is a way around this buts it still doesnt work with a lot of designs as I recently found out.

:)

[Michael]

I came across this in another forum discussing the same subject, don't know Raja if you have seen this one The counter (http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/res.php)?

[Eagle]

*
Hmmm, when I checked that, the stats were:

800x600 (44%)
1024x768 (42%)
1280x1024 (4%)
1152x864 (3%)
640x480 (2%)
Unknown (1%)
1600x1200 (0%)

I'd be the first to suggest though that the majority of people likely to:

a. be interested in those statistics

and

b. have friends that would introduce them to the link

are those that are technically minded / internet savvy folk already...therefore they would more than likely be at 1024x768 or higher...

(I conceeded in the the end and built my webby 'optimised' for 1024x768 but with 800x600 in mind...) B)
*

[KelliShaver]

I'm on a 21in monitor running 1152x864 and I'd love to bump it up a notch or two, but with my very bad eyesight, that's just not possible.

[SideFX]

I am running dual monitors my 17' is set at 1280x1024 and my 19" 1600x1200 :tup:

[Hypnosis]

1024 x 768. International Standard.
Hyp!

[AlexKogan]

I have 800x600 at work (mostly, because that was what the ID people set it to) and 1024x768 at home. Both work just fine.

[1on1]

I use 1152x864 on a 19" monitor

[hheine]

2048x768 -it´s a dual scan matrox card. 2 x 19" monitors....

[annia]

my bf still uses 800x600 .. he says he don't want to read those tiny fonts at 1024x768 and upwards..
and I think there are plenty of people who think the same way.. so I still design for 800x600

ps. I got 1280x1024

[KellyB]

1280 x 1024 normally

and sometimes I have a second monitor running side by side running 1024 x 768 :)

[Palmer]

I have tried higher resolutions and I too have trouble reading the screen. That's why I keep mine at 800x600 and also design for that resolution but I have the design stretch to fit the users monitor.

[scriptfactory]

Nokia 445Xpro 21" Monitor; 1600x1024 @ 100hz
Price: $125 from ebay

I don't know how I ever survived with less of a monitor. I found a lady selling about 20 of these monitors on ebay and that is the price I paid including shipping fees.

I have a question for any designer working at 1024x768 or lower. How do you do it?!

[customb]

I was using thecounter as reference, to bad that they stopped displaying public stats.
I'm using 1024* on 17" but I'm claustrophobic on this one... using tab a lot on photoshop to hide the menus. Anyone from here works on 2 monitors? Raja, I recommend this solution for you :)

[scriptfactory]

I actually have a second 19" monitor that I was planning on hooking up to my GeForce 5700 ( it has two VGA output ports ) but my desk isn't quite large enough. :S

I believe that Raja definitely should try this out. I have never had so many applications open at the same time! Mainly I have CuteFTP, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, SecureCRT and WinAmp open at all times. I also use Trillian Pro to cut down on my instant messengers.

[hheine]

I´m happy using my matrox. This is the ONLY professional solution:

http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/desk...hics_design.cfm (http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/desktop_pub/graphics_design.cfm)

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia/256mb.cfm

They have dual and triple heads.

[VisualSense]

Here's my great solution... 57" Panasonic flat screen hooked up to a laptop, wireless keyboard and mouse... sit on the couch and design!! :D

Just kidding, we do have that, but just for surfing the net, but we still work in our office. I have a 17" Apple Flat Screen @ 1280x1024

-Diane

[Raja]

<!--QuoteBegin-VisualSense+Feb 27 2004, 05:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VisualSense @ Feb 27 2004, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 57" Panasonic flat screen hooked up to a laptop, wireless keyboard and mouse... sit on the couch and design!! [/b][/quote]
post a pic! I'd love to see that set up :tup:

[AlexKogan]

....we do have that, but just for surfing the net

AWWWW, what a crime!!! :cry: :bash: :rip: It's like running dog races in a particle accelerator!!!

[VisualSense]

I'll post a picture once my husband and friends are done playing XBox... :)
The reason I don't actually design on it is because we have a pc laptop hooked up to it and frankly, I need my MAC! So yeah we use it for the web and to run iTunes for a great Jukebox experience! Perhaps when I finally get that PowerBook I'll work with the big screen :D
-Diane

[VisualSense]

Big Screen Set-Up
The laptop is hidden behind the TV stand. Wireless keyboard and mouse on our coffee table... it's always "online" :)

[FLiP]

I myself use a 1024x768 resolution. Its just the perfect size.

Visual thats amazing wish I had a big screen tv to set something like that on :P

[Deejaypee]

This is an interesting question.

I have a web development company that does a fair bit of work in the health industry. It seems that the majority of users in health (dominated by middle aged women) run monitors at 800x600 so we always need to make sure that our sites scale well down to 800x600.

That has caused us some problems with designers who think that cramps their style a little too much ;) - but you've gotta please the customer.

[SonnetCelestial]

I had a mag 21 incher but now I'm on a dinky old acerview 15 incher. :( sigh. living in a small apartment though and with lcds still costing an arm and a leg, that's pretty much all I can do at this point in time

[SymbolikDesignz]

Depends on where I am at, and what I am doing...

Home: 1280x1024
Work: 1600x1200 (sometimes 1280x1024)

[Lori]

1024x768 - but always keep the 800x600'ers in mind ;)

[Wizard_of_Words]

when 800 x 600 gets lower than 3%
I won't design for it.

if 3% of over a million users hit your site...
that's 300 000+ users.

the scary part is, it's much higher than 3%.

The time to stop designing for a certain monitor setting is tricky. Most designers would prefer to design for one resolution... I sure would. It would save a lot of time. It's a very nice thought.

Consider this: When you decide not to design your site for a certain demographic setting... stop telling yourself no one is using that setting anymore. There are many users still using 400x600. The question is, how low does the percentage have to drop in which you will not cater to them anymore. And the second question is how good of a guesser are you? because that's what your doing when you come up with a percentage number.

imagine the other issues...
like download speeds (high speed?)
operating system versions
browser versions
browser updates.

When the time and money can back it up , cover all this issues.
When they aren't, the client will have to settle for catering to the highest percentage that you both agree on.

WEEMAN

[beatz]

<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_of_Words+May 22 2004, 10:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_of_Words @ May 22 2004, 10:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if 3% of over a million users hit your site...
that's 300 000+ users. [/b][/quote]
Are you sure ? :D

[Wizard_of_Words]

hehe
too many zeros
30 000 sounds better

I wish I could say it was a typo but I just like a lot of zeros
too bad my paycheck doesnt have many.

WEEMAN

[V + E + R + T]

Wow, I am surprised at such low resolutions, considering all of us are designers.

I guess I'm blessed with good vision. :lol:

I guess I'm too used to the high resolutions used by multimedia designers, and other Photoshop non-mainstream designers. :

[bogglins]

1024x768 !! :tup:

[mbleigh]

1280x1024 on a 19" flat panel.

[Vicki]

1024x768 would be mine. :)

[rbdl]

I just scored a 2nd hand 22inch monitor, so I'm at 1280x1024. everything still looks big though.

[JakSmit]

1152x870

[Maleika]

1024x768 a 32bit. It's the most comfortable resolution for me at the moment. :)

[AlexNorton]

I use 1280 x 1024 all the time on a 19 inch LCD Sceptre Gamers edition.

It's great in photoshop when I am doing Image restoration and also when I am doing some video production work.