Viewing Thread:
"800x600 - When should we stop making sites for those jerks?"

--> Look at all that wasted space over there. So many sites designed for people using 800x600, yet who in the right mind would still be using that resolution. It's almost 2006 not the mid-90ies there should be no excuse for using it. Does anyone here still use 800x600? What resolution are you using? Do you have any trouble looking at 800x600 sites especially those of you using a very high resolution. When do you think sites, like SR, yahoo etc should increase their minimum resolution? 2010?

--> Look at all that wasted space over there. So many sites designed for people using 800x600, yet who in the right mind would still be using that resolution. It's almost 2006 not the mid-90ies there should be no excuse for using it. Does anyone here still use 800x600? What resolution are you using? Do you have any trouble looking at 800x600 sites especially those of you using a very high resolution. When do you think sites, like SR, yahoo etc should increase their minimum resolution? 2010?

That's why I center sites.

Plus, there's still a huge amount of people using antiquated technology.

So to summarise. We'll more to a higher resolution when The Man deems it necessary to do so. :(

Screw that, all the sites i made for uni where 1024x768, if someone was on technology that couldn't go higher i wouldn't want them looking at my site in the first place.

I mean look at this site i have a big dirty space on the right hand side that they could have used to try to sell me something.

Why not use dynamic sizing that can accommodate a minimum size of 800*600 and then scale? Like: http://www.the-starr.co.uk/

Nimco wrote:
> Why not use dynamic sizing that can accommodate a minimum size of
> 800*600 and then scale? Like: http://www.the-starr.co.uk/

Sometimes it works, but I like control over my layouts. CMS I always use liquid layouts, but for the forward facing parts, fixed sizing. That link you posted still has quite a large amount of space to the right.

Chippxero, it doesn't work like that in business (unfortunately)

You should remember that screen resolution and browser window size arent the same thing.
My screen resolution is 1280x1024, even so I rarely have a browser window bigger than roughly 800x600. I certainly dont have any huge white space on SR's site. :) I move up resolutions because I want more workspace, defeats the purpose for me if websites just reclaim all that extra workspace again.

And honestly, at this point in time, I cant claim to have seen any sites that require 1024x768 and above to be anything other than the results of poor design rather than real innovation requiring larger browser windows.

Fixed widths. If you give a client control over content, then they're going to want it to look the same for everyone - especially if images are put in with the text.

monkey_man wrote:
> Fixed widths. If you give a client control over content, then they're
> going to want it to look the same for everyone - especially if images
> are put in with the text.

I'm having that problem at the moment. My client doesn't recognise that the AOL browser (i.e. IE) doesn't appear exactly the same as Firefox, and even if it did, his machine is for graphics design and therefore high screen res. I keep being brutally honest and saying things like "I can make it wider....if you don't mind alienating 30% of your site visitors who won't be able to read the name of the site!". Oooops! Hehe.

I have 1280x1024 Screen resolution, but I have my browser window set to 1024x768. Gives me some nice extra space for MSN and Ventrilo etc...

Garin wrote:
> You should remember that screen resolution and browser window size
> arent the same thing.

Of course. Personally, I hate running multiple windows and maximize them all.