|Screen reslolutions for internet sites|
Going to be making my website pretty soon and I was wondering what resolution is the most commonly used for websites these days?
read 559 times
8/7/2009 9:21:42 PM (last edit: 8/7/2009 9:21:42 PM)
personally, I still try to make my sites work for 800x600, cause you never know what machine people will be looking at stuff on. Recruiters, producers, and other folks may be on crummy mac laptops with pretty small screens.
www.DanielBuck.net - www.DNSFail.com
read 545 times
8/8/2009 12:06:59 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 12:08:02 AM)
800x600 is the standard size that your meant to go for for everybody to be able to see it.
but personally i work to 1024x768 as the 800x600 res is soo old that everybody has better that that really, and if they dont then alot of the time they arent my target audience anyway, and then the website will look that bit better
i wouldnt go up to 1280x1024 though as thats past the resolution of 90% of laptops.
read 523 times
8/8/2009 4:33:47 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 4:33:47 AM)
| Nik Clark
I hate sites that force me to have a really wide browser. I browse in a window, not full screen.
read 520 times
8/8/2009 4:36:05 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 4:36:05 AM)
Personally I'd be shocked if anybody in the graphics business were looking at a website, or indeed ANYTHING, on an 800x600 display. :/
read 511 times
8/8/2009 5:34:14 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 5:34:14 AM)
I think it would be really nice if you could lay out content on an entire surface (mapped 0 .. 1 in x/y). That way, things look the same regardless of resolution *. The higher the resolution, the crisper the result. At the moment, you have little control over whether content fits on a page, or clips and requires scroll bars. That said, some content works well in a scrolled view.
* you still need to aspect adjust of course for different shaped displays.
You could have several profiles - a square one, a tall one & a wide one & have the browser select the most appropriate layout based on screen / window dimensions. You could also have sub-profiles for small displays (if you make things too tiny on a small display, you can't read anything, so you have to do things a little differently).
> 800x600 res is soo old that everybody has better that that really
iPhone screen res : 480 x 320
read 506 times
8/8/2009 5:53:07 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 6:57:03 AM)
@as- yeah but the iPhone will adjust by zooming in and out.
read 482 times
8/8/2009 10:20:08 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 10:20:08 AM)
I wouldn't design a site bigger then 750px wide. Take into account bars on the side of the screen and like Nik said, windowed screens.
Don't think of it as what resolution people's monitors are at, think of it what the window may be. Rarely does a site need any more space then 750 wide anyway.
read 468 times
8/8/2009 11:26:16 AM (last edit: 8/8/2009 11:26:16 AM)
I assume most people use at least 1024x768 nowadays, I can't imagine anyone in the need of viewing your portfolio (It is ur folio right) who doesnt have that resolution at least, and if they don't it's their problem imo.
As for viewing on a phone or something similar small... It´s obviously that a portfolio is not made to be watched on a tiny screen, you show your skills and that doesnt work well in miniature so if they really want to see your work they best get a decent resolution comp. (assuming you are talking about a portfoliowebsite.)
Also what ppl said about the explorer bars is a good one, first time I made a website I didnt realise that and was wondering why the website didnt fit well lol.
read 455 times
8/8/2009 12:19:42 PM (last edit: 8/8/2009 12:19:42 PM)
| Stephen R.
current web standard is 960px wide, low-res friendly sites go 740px. If you're worried about mobile browsing just write a seperate CSS file for that media type that takes off all the layout of your site and adds in a mobile friendly nav.
read 438 times
8/8/2009 12:59:10 PM (last edit: 8/8/2009 12:59:10 PM)
I had a debate about this with my friend and colleague over a year ago. He was arguing that all sites should be designed for 800x600. I was arguing that that standard is outdated, and that it is totally acceptable to design for 1024x768, which is now the most common screen resolution. Especially for our industry, I think it's safe to err on the side of higher res.
Consider the following main-stream sites:
Some of the most visited websites on the internet are designed for 1024x768:
More 1024 sites related to our industry:
To be fair here are some mainstream sites that were either designed for 800x600 or are liquid and can adapt to 800x600:
Also, keep in mind all modern browsers have a page zoom feature. If the page doesn't fit the screen very well, you can zoom in or out. Better to zoom out in my opinion. That way you retain image resolution.
That being said, if you can make a nice site design that looks great in 1024x768 AND 800x600 then you get extra credit.
Just for the record, I convinced my friend that I was right. He doesn't design for 800x600 anymore.
read 404 times
8/9/2009 7:21:05 AM (last edit: 8/9/2009 7:51:05 AM)