Desgning web pages to fit 1024 resolution screens

[Paul B]

A few comments on the border radius thread stating that those people still using IE6 should basically upgrade or accept that websites won't work properly for them got me thinking.

I personally accept that some elements of my site don't work in IE6.
Whilst this is unfortunate, I can't really do much about it without impacting all the other browsers so I have adopted a similar approach.

How do people treat those users with small resolution screens though?
From what I can tell, the major sites are still designing pages to fit 1024px wide screens; BBC, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Isn't that just dumbing down to the lowest common denominator though?
Imagine if web sites were designed to cater for those on the slowest internet connections?
We'd still be creating text only pages with no graphics, .js or anything else.
It's 2010, surely now we can start designing fixed width sites which are wider than 1024?

I'd like to see what percentage there are of screen widths in use as I suspect that 50% of a significant amount of the displays in the world is being unused due to catering for those with very small resolutions.

 

[wii]

I don't agree, 95% of all netbooks for example are 1024x768 pixels, do you will want to ignore that many people? I sure not, it will be a few years before we can drop 1024x768 resolution in webdesign.

 

[cedivad]

I post this since i suppose it to be usefull to the topic:

 

[wii]

Yeah, that looks about right.

 

[Paul B]

Is that from your own site cedivad?
What's the main topic of the site?

 

[Paul B]

I don't agree, 95% of all netbooks for example are 1024x768 pixels, do you will want to ignore that many people?

So what about those using 800px resolutions?
Aren't you worried about ignoring those also?

 

[wii]

No, because the amount of users using 800px is very low, I dropped support for that about 2 years ago.

 

[Elizabeth]

How do people treat those users with small resolution screens though?

From what I can tell, the major sites are still designing pages to fit 1024px wide screens; BBC, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Isn't that just dumbing down to the lowest common denominator though?

Imagine if web sites were designed to cater for those on the slowest internet connections?

We'd still be creating text only pages with no graphics, .js or anything else.

It's 2010, surely now we can start designing fixed width sites which are wider than 1024?

I'd like to see what percentage there are of screen widths in use as I suspect that 50% of a significant amount of the displays in the world is being unused due to catering for those with very small resolutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Resolution % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 76%
1024×768 20%
800×600 1%
Lower than 800×600 < 1%
Unknown 3%

http://cell-phones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/

480 x 320 to 800 x 480 resolution is common and a huge market.

And I try to design my personal site with no javascript if possible. I'm also going back in after all these years and trying my best to validate every page. Which means for my graphics, I have the alt tags.

 

[CBI Web]

I post this since i suppose it to be usefull to the topic:

And yet we have this: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

 

[Kim]

I still design for 1024x768 - unless the client knows they have a different demographic and can take a larger design, sometimes it is limiting but all my designs are fluid anyway so it's not a huge deal for me.

I personally use 1680 x 1050 for browsing, and anything smaller looks so cramped lol.

 

[CBI Web]

I've designed for 1024x768 for about 5 years now, and thinking of going with something higher, but with min-width/max-width properties.

 

[cedivad]

Is that from your own site cedivad?
What's the main topic of the site?

Yes, it's my main website, but there are no topics, it talks about everything. That's way i posted it
However we also have this: http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-ww-monthly-200908-201008

The main problem is to design pages that looks great both with a fixed width of 900px (the 1024*768 display) and of 1200-1100px.

 

[wii]

Oh, I don't consider that a problem, what I do with the fixed width websites is create a background header or whatever that is wider than the site itself, so it looks good, even on high resolutions.

 

[anotheralias]

Isn't that just dumbing down to the lowest common denominator though?
Imagine if web sites were designed to cater for those on the slowest internet connections?

For a very long time, they were. You assumed that they were on dialup and designed accordingly, and your page load time had to be fast for those on dialup to be considered "fast." And don't even get me started on WebTV. You don't know how good you have it, worrying about trivialities like 1024 and rounded corners.

 

[HannahP]

Your friends at Google will show you a graphic example of how many users can see how much of your site.

 

[Miko]

I'm personally quite happy that 1024px as become the standard.
I really like that size (even on 2560px wide monitor) and it fit perfectly on my iPad.
If you think that not long ago 800 x 600 was still considered an important resolution when designing a website, 1024 is a huge improvement.

 

[cedivad]

Your friends at Google will show you a graphic example of how many users can see how much of your site.

that thing looks older than me.

 

[Floris]

psuedo media!

min-width
max-width

 

[Miko]

that thing looks older than me.

Ditto!
I think we can all trust statcounter and w3schools numbers other than that horrible image

 

[Miko]

psuedo media!

min-width
max-width

Hey Floris can you please change your avatar back, your new one it's freaking me out