OT: WEBSITE DESIGNING (Resolutions)

This is kind of 60/40 off/on topic . . .

In designing websites, what would you all say is the CURRENT standard to use ...
designing for 800x600 resolution or for 1024x768 resolution?

I have heard arguments on both sides of the coin, but I thought I would throw it out for discussion here.

I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I know that there are still people/companies out there who (in my opinion) are living in the dark ages and still using low resolution monitors and graphic cards - and therefore are better suited for a nice fitting 800x600 website.

HOWEVER, it is (in my opinion) incredibly difficult to effectively design for 800x600 (visually/dynamically speaking) due to the space constraints. I would MUCH prefer to design for 1024x768, and let the 800x600'ers deal with their scroll bars.

Nevertheless, I want to make the most people happy that I can. I know about autostretch features and such, but sometimes it is not feasible in certain layout situations.


So, therein lays my dilema.



What do y'all think??



JediTAC

 

I would MUCH prefer to design for 1024x768

I agree

 

It depends on your audience. True, 45% of internet users are running at 800x600. But this group is comprised mostly of people with low quality computers, found in educational settings and developing/poor countries.

If you're designing a fan film website, for example, chances are (and I realize there are exceptions) your audience will be English-speaking users with high quality computers. Therefore, the resolution you should target is probably higher than 800x600. However, if your site has a broader audience, you can't simply design a site for a given resolution and tell everyone else to deal with it. That's not good business.

 

I prefer at least 1024x768. The only place where I sometimes use an 800x600 res is at one of the workstation in the main room of our department.

It is possible to design a nice and nifty looking website for almost any res (even looking good at 800x600) but it will take a little more time in planning/laying it out.

 

[pNick..puts on software developer's hat]

A web site is fundamentally computer software. As with any software design, a web site's design needs to optimize two core elements: functionality & usability.

If your web site simply has SOOOOO much functionality, that it can't possibly be usable at an 800x600 resolution, then it might make sense to up your required resolution. But would so much functionality on a single screen be truely effective, or just more clutter on a bigger platform?

Personally, I think that if you can organize your functionally to operate effectively in a smaller area, with good organizational, navigational and asthetic design, you users are better off for the effort, regardless of how big their screen may be.

Sounds like you're really working on a killer site! Can't wait to see what's in store!

Have fun!

 

you can't simply design a site for a given resolution and tell everyone else to deal with it.

If 45% of internet users are still using 800 by 600 then there is your answer.
I know the feeling and it's a very sad to see, (as shown here),
[image=http://www.stormahead.com/images/dodgy.jpg]

This is what my site looks like on my monitor - pathetic. But on Nikki's iMac it pretty well fills the screen. It's a pain, but you do have to design for the lowest common denominator (within reason of course) Take a look at any big site (hp.com for example) and see what they do, and how 'stuff' is laid out. Alas if it's a serious project, you have to make the thing work well for everyone, and scrollbars for 45% of your audience isn't really ideal.

 

I agree with Daft. I personally design websites for 800 x 600

 

All true ... all true.

Well, since the website is dealing with, primarily, FanFilms ... and since FanFilms are an international art ... I guess I am going to have stick with the 800x600 and simply put that much more thought into arrangement and such.

I mean, it looks good now at 800x600 ... ( right Golden Y?? ) but I was just thinking of what I might be able to accomplish at a higher resolution. Nevertheless, this will simply require some keener thinking/planning on my part.

I suppose when that proverbial 45% becomes 10-15%, THEN perhaps I'll feel better subscribing to the
"needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" mode of logic.


THANKS GUYS !!!




TAC

 

I am a professional web producer (hehe) so I will now make my $2 contribution, thats right, 100 x $0.02 (j/k)

Ok, stretching is a good idea. I would be very very interested to see what your design looks like because I work 3 days a week at Mediastudio to make web page magic happen. I wonder if I could even help you decide how to splice...anyway, I don't do a whole lot of design, I work somewhat exclusively building pages out from a psd so I feel somewhat confident.

Ok, so the resolution to pick for? 800x600. Why? Because 800x600 users are out there, so play to that audience. 1024x768(and up) users are more prevalent no doubt, but I almost prefer a set pixel width web page. Also, unless you have a really fantastic design and layout that will fill 1024 pixels, your content will look puny stretched out that far. Keep it at 800.

On a side note...want to see a site that totally avoids this problem? (as long as the user doesn't actually view pages in a browser 400px wide)
Lord of the Rings - Official Movie web site
Resize your browser window...it is pretty cool.

 

If I'm not mistaken - is there not a way for the website to detect resoloution on the visitor and redirect to the proper resoloution page?
Just offering an idea...

 

That would at least double your workload after the design process. However, given the right project and resources, I suppose it would work if you wanted to do that.

 

Hey Cougar,

That resizing on the Lord of the Rings site is very cool. There's a web agency earning their keep.

A very flash site indeed.

 

Well, I don't know how much time you have, but there's a site you can check out, biohazard extreme. Yeah, it's a resident evil site, but when you click enter, there's a link to different resolutions, although on that particular site, it is only 1024 x 768 or higher for the resoluton choices. You could make a few resolution choices if you have the time.

Aaron

 

Part of my side business is web design. Designing websites for the lowest, or near lowest, denominator is the best bet people will enjoy your site. A few years ago, it was recommended that websites stay at 640x480 with a 256 web safe color range since over half the worlds population uses that tiny of a monitor. Now, fast forward to now, most monitors are 800x600 with millions of colors.

I think the key to webdesign, especially people who design their own or are new to it, is to keep it simple and let the user find the information (within two or three clicks). Simplicity should also include quick download times, meaning small html and image files. If a website is easy to navigate and quick to load, then it'll be more appreciated for it's content.

 

Yeah Daft, when I realized that is resized, I was just like, "Wow, thats powerful." The fact that they use 1 file and the images automatically smooth themselves is fantastic.


Some people actually keep their sites down to like 600px or somewhere down there so that when they print, everything is included...but of course, it again depends on the project...

 

TAC-- I have 1240x1028 or whatever, and it looks great on mine... no worries.

Cya
mike

 

I run 1024x768. Also remember that 45% of the internet users does not neccesarily mean 45% of the fan film guys. I would assume that most of the people who are watching these fanfilms and making them are running at higher resolutions than our buddies who have just discovered AIM.

Just a thought.

 

this will be helpful...

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/November/res.php

Looks like 800x600 is still dominant, though as others have said, you'll want to cater to your particular audience...

 

Well as others have said it depends on your audience if you want anyone in the world to be able to check it out go with 800, if you only intend other fanfilm makers and people you know will have better cards go 1024. Though I would be more concerned about being more compliant. I use mainly Mozilla for browsing so when a site uses Flash for navigation or IE only Javascript I have to fire IE or sometimes I won't bother.

One thing to do is use portal software. I use a PHP based one PHPwebsite for the ILMfan site. You can code a theme that specifies the side columns to be always 20% the width of the table each so the cenntral part is always 60% as wide as the nrowser (unless you go for a very small size, then bars appear). But that way my site is viewable and maintains the layout from 800x600 and upwards so I don't have to worry about anything. So if your server or provider has PHP, Perl, Python or ASP there are plenty of portal packages to choose from. Of course some require a bit more knowledge than just making graphics for the the site to install it, though many include diffrerent styles ready made to use.

 

perhaps u should create two formats, and have an option on a entry page, allowing u to select, either 800 x 600 or the other one.

i know that this can be extra work, but i think that people will appreciate it.

i notice that TFN is designed for 800 x 600, but still fits smoothly into the bigger screens.

 

Designing two resolution sizes is a waste of time. TFN fits both by being designed for 800x600 but stretching to bigger resolutions, not completely jumping to another design.

TAC, stick with 800x600, but you know i've said that a million times before.

-Chris

 

I run in 1400 by 1050 resolution on my laptop and 1280 by 1024 on my desktop. My brother runs 1600 by 1200. My parents old slow compaq runs at 1024 by 768.

Just thought I would give you a few real world examples. As you can see there isnt any problem with 1024 by 768 here!





SWmaster

 

TAC, stick with 800x600, but you know i've said that a million times before.


I know - in fact you were the one I was thinking of when I said "I've heard arguments on both sides of the coin"




I guess I just thought I'd throw it out there just to get a general consensus from this particular web-using comunity. Despite my inert desire to want to do otherwise, I am going to stick with my 800x600 design . . . for now.


Thanks for all of your input and insight.




JediTAC

 

I dunno... you can do some pretty neat things with SHTML to allow you to design for both resolutions at almost no increase in workload. But 800X600 would be a fine choice indeed.

Chris