Viewing Thread:
"Garin and the 600x800 jerks"

Garin wrote:
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.

Just gives you an idea of how long I was working on this website of mine =) You posted this a year and 3 months ago Garin.

Yeah so my question is, are things still like this Garin? Have you still not seen a website requiring 1024x768 that wasnt the result of poor design? And do you feel we should still work at a lower resolution because of mobile devices that Tyla mentioned?

Note: The thread I made was about whether we should stop creating sites for "600x800 jerks".

cjh wrote:
> I'm a jerk :)

I should have known ;) heh

Oops I forgot to add my comment to this ^^;

yes I pretty much agree with you Garin =) I have seen a lot of websites leaving 760px and doing their sites for the higher resolutions. Is it because of mobile devices that BBC and others aligned their sites to the left? I never figured out why they did that.

I checked out other discussions on this and it was pretty much the same. Some people have moved on, others were staying and mentioned mobile devices. And just like you, some people enjoy having two windows up at once. I can see that being quite useful if you cant afford dual monitors =)

You mentioned 17%, some gave the figure of 5% but then even if it was just 5% that's still 1 in 20 users. I dont want to have a design that 100s/1000s of users can't see properly.

I'm a jerk :)

No things arent still like this. My current resolution is 1440x900. :P

Well naturally things have moved on a bit, they'll always be an upward trend on resolutions. You can see that just by looking at w3schools browser stats which only has 800x600 users at 17% at the moment.

Certainly some of the larger portal sites have started moving to higher minimum resolutions, eg yahoo. And Yahoo's portal certainly isnt poorly designed. Yet I think what both Tyla and myself said stands though. I dont believe theres too much reason to abandon lower resolutions just yet.

Garin wrote:
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.

Just gives you an idea of how long I was working on this website of mine =) You posted this a year and 3 months ago Garin.

Yeah so my question is, are things still like this Garin? Have you still not seen a website requiring 1024x768 that wasnt the result of poor design? And do you feel we should still work at a lower resolution because of mobile devices that Tyla mentioned?

Note: The thread I made was about whether we should stop creating sites for "600x800 jerks".