Web Design & Screen Resolution

ButtermilkJack

Hey,

I'm wondering what all you folks reckon is the best screen resolution to design in and for when doing websites?

Reason being I'm about to buy a laptop but don't want to buy a huge screen (ie: 1680 x 1250) 'cos apparantly LCD's can't be 'downsized' without distortion/blurring.

ninebeanrows

I would advise constructing your website for best use with 1024 X 768
resolution. Through my site 65% of users use the above resolution

ButtermilkJack

Thank You Weathercheck, that's a high enough percentage!

Rollo Tamasi

thats probably the best resolution alright.
If you are worried about res issues then you should design using percentages for tables/frames instead of pixels

Serbian

Screen resolution stats on the web are as follows (from Feb 2005. Source):

54%	1024 x 768
28%	800 x 600
10%	1280 x 1024
03%	1152 x 864
01%	640 x 480
<1%	1600 x 1200

1024x768 is the most popular alright, but 800x600 is still almost a third of the screen resolutions out there. I always build sites for 800x600 personally so nobody is excluded but that's just a personal preference.

ButtermilkJack

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

thats probably the best resolution alright.
If you are worried about res issues then you should design using percentages for tables/frames instead of pixels

Good advice! I agree, I try to use percentages all the time thru CSS (though I avoid tables/frames like the plague!). Much safer I reckon.

Serbian wrote:

Screen resolution stats on the web are as follows (from Feb 2005. Source):

Great site! Interesting to see Firefox only at 6% though, and IE6 at 81%. Thought that gap might be a bit smaller by now!

I guess the bottom line is, design on whatever you feel comfortable with - more elbow room on the larger res sounds like a plus alright! - but for testing revert back to 1024x768 to make sure all looks sweet.

Thanks!

rsynnott

It's also worth noting that most people don't run the browser maximised. I use a 1600x1200 monitor, but my browser would rarely be wider than 800x600, and I would avoid sites which try to force it to a silly size.

Rollo Tamasi

rsynnott wrote:

I use a 1600x1200 monitor

Yikes!! How much did that cost?

rsynnott

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

Yikes!! How much did that cost?

Oh, well, I think most people wouldn't run it at that resolution (19" CRT)

Goodshape

For web design I'd and try to keep most of the important features within 800x600 and either have that scalable (eg. using percentages) or have some sort of overflow, so you're not just looking at white space on a higher res.

kjt

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

Yikes!! How much did that cost?

lol I run at 2048x1536 on my 21"

Ummm
Lately I've been going back down to 1600x1200 though.

Rollo Tamasi

i have a deadly 19" Samsung CRT, bought it on Komplett for about E200, blasted thing broke after about 2 months. I think there was too much power going into or something, it was a german build and came with a "lovely" two pin power supply cable. I learnt a valuable lesson! lol

mneylon

Goodshape wrote:

For web design I'd and try to keep most of the important features within 800x600 and either have that scalable (eg. using percentages) or have some sort of overflow, so you're not just looking at white space on a higher res.

True.
There's nothing worse than looking at sites that do not scale and are left aligned. They look really silly at higher resolutions, however you also have to make sure that the site is viewable and usable at 800x600 (unless it's some kind of pretentious design site where you presume/assume that your audience should only be using high resolutions :P )

rsynnott

blacknight wrote:

True.
There's nothing worse than looking at sites that do not scale and are left aligned. They look really silly at higher resolutions, however you also have to make sure that the site is viewable and usable at 800x600 (unless it's some kind of pretentious design site where you presume/assume that your audience should only be using high resolutions :P )

Even that sort of site can no longer make such assumptions; said affluent audience may be using the latest in miniaturised portable technology

mneylon

rsynnott wrote:

Even that sort of site can no longer make such assumptions; said affluent audience may be using the latest in miniaturised portable technology

In which case you would really need to be using XML

soph

I would usually design for an 800 x 600 monitor as unfortunately there are still people out there that insist on using 800x600 and we have to cater for these people as it would be soooo annoying for them to have to scroll across and up and down to view the whole picture

ButtermilkJack

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I just bit the bullet and ordered a Samsung X20 (15.1", 1024 x 768, SuperBright LCD) instead of the HP Compaq nx8220 (15.4", 1680 x 1050, standard LCD).

Will update you all with a review when it arrives!

kjt

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I just bit the bullet and ordered a Samsung X20 (15.1", 1024 x 768, SuperBright LCD) instead of the HP Compaq nx8220 (15.4", 1680 x 1050, standard LCD).

Will update you all with a review when it arrives!

Eww why?

You could have just changed the resolution.....

rsynnott

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I just bit the bullet and ordered a Samsung X20 (15.1", 1024 x 768, SuperBright LCD) instead of the HP Compaq nx8220 (15.4", 1680 x 1050, standard LCD).

Will update you all with a review when it arrives!

That is a fscking bizarre basis for buying a monitor...

Goodshape

Maybe because...

ButtermilkJack wrote:

don't want to buy a huge screen (ie: 1680 x 1250) 'cos apparantly LCD's can't be 'downsized' without distortion/blurring.

rsynnott

You could resize your browser window, you know. Such functionality has been available since MacOS 2, AFAIK

kjt

My bad

ButtermilkJack

kjt, I see you realised your comment was a bit hasty and raised the white flag! but just to clarify, using a 1680x1050 screen res would just wreck my head if all I was going to do was resize windows all day long (and guessing the sizes at that!). Besides, I thought the new technology (SuperBright LCD) was better to have than a bigger screen.

At least with a 1024x768 I'll be designing at 100% for the majority of users. Plus it's a sexy lookin' machine imo!

hostyle

ButtermilkJack wrote:

but just to clarify, using a 1680x1050 screen res would just wreck my head if all I was going to do was resize windows all day long (and guessing the sizes at that!).

Thats why they have browser plugins and bookmarklets that will do the resizing for you at the click of a button.

ButtermilkJack wrote:

At least with a 1024x768 I'll be designing at 100% for the majority of users. Plus it's a sexy lookin' machine imo!

And how do you check what the site would look like on larger resolutions?

ButtermilkJack

hostyle wrote:

Thats why they have browser plugins and bookmarklets that will do the resizing for you at the click of a button.

What's this now, and how do I use it. Never heard of these but they sound useful?

And how do you check what the site would look like on larger resolutions?

Just design it so it scales out to fill the screen rather than leave empty space. Designing big and scaling down gets messy imo cos you never know how much the user has to scroll to see you content. At least going small < big means you know the same content is going to be on the screen, just re-flowed.

I would prefer if everyone used larger screens and then I could design for larger screens (I use a larger screen for most stuff in work!), but I'd also prefer if everyone used Apple mac's but that ain't gonna happen. So, in the meantime it's a PC laptop for me with a middle of the road screen. Not going to be watching dvd's or gaming so I'm looking for lightweight high spec which i think I've found

hostyle

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Just design it so it scales out to fill the screen rather than leave empty space. Designing big and scaling down gets messy imo cos you never know how much the user has to scroll to see you content. At least going small < big means you know the same content is going to be on the screen, just re-flowed.

*cough* I know that. That wasn't my point at all. But how do you test something weird doesn't happen at large resolutions if you don't have a large resolution to check with? I'm not saying it will happen to you, but its always best to be able to test these things, and that your reasoning in this particular point was slightly flawed - all IMO of course.

ButtermilkJack

hostyle wrote:

*cough* I know that. That wasn't my point at all. But how do you test something weird doesn't happen at large resolutions if you don't have a large resolution to check with? I'm not saying it will happen to you, but its always best to be able to test these things, and that your reasoning in this particular point was slightly flawed - all IMO of course.

I agree, it would be advisable to test on all possible configurations, be they platform, software or user/screen based. I'm just trying to convince myself I bought the right laptop that's all

After weeks of reviewing (I'm just that type of person.... ) I finally decided on one yesterday. I appreciate the banter though! Great to get other ppls views.

BTW, you sound like you have experience in web design. What screen size do you use, any advantages/disadvantages?

Oh, and what are those bookmarklets thingies you mentioned earlier? Cheers.

rsynnott

ButtermilkJack wrote:

I agree, it would be advisable to test on all possible configurations, be they platform, software or user/screen based. I'm just trying to convince myself I bought the right laptop that's all

All possible configurations? Have you tried it on a Vostok analog computer running QNX with a projector and joystick yet?

hostyle

ButtermilkJack wrote:

What screen size do you use, any advantages/disadvantages?

Whatever is at hand No advantages / disadvantages. I leave the screen testing up to the graphic designers once I'm finished with xHTML / CSS / etc.

Oh, and what are those bookmarklets thingies you mentioned earlier? Cheers.

javascript bookmarks. Google for em. I usually write my own.