F
Floris
Guest
I just get the stats from all the sites who's data is more than 5 years old.
Their average is what I think is a bit better reality.
Desgning web pages to fit 1024 resolution screens
- Thread starter Paul B
- Start date
I just get the stats from all the sites who's data is more than 5 years old.
Their average is what I think is a bit better reality.
CBI Web
Well-known member
Yay! Confirmation!psuedo media!
min-width
max-width
And Floris... I see you've managed to drink yourself pretty.
(Disclaimer: This post was made at a time when Floris' avatar was a pic of a woman.)
.
HannahP
Well-known member
Good points. What does stupid Google know about the web anyway, right?
Miko
Well-known member
From reading the article about the creation of that page, it looks like the data is not dynamically updated.... so those graphs are actually from november last year.
http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-browser-size.html
Also Google trends used to offer great statistics but also stopped offering them in 2004
Unless of course I'm wrong... and that can happen since it's 2am and last night i only had 4 hours sleep
dmnkhhn
Active member
We ditched support for resolutions < 1024x768… and IE6 unless the customers wants us to put extra work into it which makes it more expensive. It's all about evolution.
Of course, I am talking about normal websites here. Some projects need the extra work to make them look good in old browsers or on mobile devices. It's all good as long as the customer pays.
I am really tired of this 'your website needs to look good in all browser' rubbish… At least the customers of the industry we are targeting at are having a hard timing understanding why a (in their eyes) normal website costs nearly twice as much. Someone has to do the work and frameworks like the HTML5Boilerplate do make our lives easier but there are many more things to consider.
(Excuse me, had a hard day in the office with a customer that uses IE6-only…)
Of course, I am talking about normal websites here. Some projects need the extra work to make them look good in old browsers or on mobile devices. It's all good as long as the customer pays.
I am really tired of this 'your website needs to look good in all browser' rubbish… At least the customers of the industry we are targeting at are having a hard timing understanding why a (in their eyes) normal website costs nearly twice as much. Someone has to do the work and frameworks like the HTML5Boilerplate do make our lives easier but there are many more things to consider.
(Excuse me, had a hard day in the office with a customer that uses IE6-only…)
Dean
in memoriam
My plan is to have 1280 to 1440 ideal, 1024 nice, 800 functional with scrolling, and under 800 wide, hopefully they can use a mobile skin. I also plan on capping max width to 1440.
I'd be interested to hear why the dev's settled on 976px for the fixed width design on here, which interestingly is the same as the BBC news site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Bearing in mind only about 30px is needed for vertical scrollbars, there is the potential to go up to about 990px without it affecting 1024 resolutions.
Bearing in mind only about 30px is needed for vertical scrollbars, there is the potential to go up to about 990px without it affecting 1024 resolutions.
Erik
Well-known member
The W3Schools data should not be considered an average sample, as it is only from their site and their audience is definitely not average. I usually use Clicky analytics' average data when looking up browser statistics. They serve 100 million page views daily, so they have a good sample size. With that said, most of the statistics I've seen peg 1024x768 at around 20-25% of the total resolution share. 
Mez
Member
I generally tend to use the 960 grid system (http://960.gs) for stuff I create for me, and in paid jobs where I can, but sometimes they don't let me. And it really depends on the feel of the site how many columns I use.
Erik
Well-known member
The best way is just to design for both using proper HTML and CSS. Elastic/flexible layouts go a long way. To see what I mean, go here, scroll down to the part of the page where it lists all of the product features and images, then scale your browser to see how it responds.
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wirele...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1275406862&pf_rd_i=507846
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wirele...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1275406862&pf_rd_i=507846
Well after a lot of testing and checking, I've decided to fix the width of my site at 992px.
On a 1024 display, IE seems to be the narrowest browser at around 1005px (with scrollbar) so in theory, I could go up another 8px to 1000px without any problems.
However, just to be on the safe side I'll leave it at 992px.
I still find it extremely frustrating to be limited by what is such an out dated screen resolution but that's life.
On a 1024 display, IE seems to be the narrowest browser at around 1005px (with scrollbar) so in theory, I could go up another 8px to 1000px without any problems.
However, just to be on the safe side I'll leave it at 992px.
I still find it extremely frustrating to be limited by what is such an out dated screen resolution but that's life.
Forsaken
Well-known member
Outdated 800x600; 1024x768 is still one of the most common resolutions on the Internet.
Lost
Well-known member
*cough*fluid templates FTW*cough*
I realize not everyone has the same screen real estate as I, but one of my pet peeves are websites that only use a small portion of the 2560 horizontal pixels I have available.
A fluid design is ideal for a lot of sites but not mine as I need to present content in a certain way and therefore have to control the width.
This is why e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ has a fixed width.
This is why e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ has a fixed width.
HannahP
Well-known member
Fluid = bad.
Why? Text is difficult to read if the lines are too long.
We have 400 years of research on this topic, courtesy of the printing trade. There is a standard text block width that book printers use, and it is much, much (much) smaller than the distance you can stretch a 1000px line on your monitor.
A fluid design for graphics may be a good idea. Text-based pages should always have a max width.
Why? Text is difficult to read if the lines are too long.
We have 400 years of research on this topic, courtesy of the printing trade. There is a standard text block width that book printers use, and it is much, much (much) smaller than the distance you can stretch a 1000px line on your monitor.
A fluid design for graphics may be a good idea. Text-based pages should always have a max width.
How about this http://cssgrid.net/
The 1140 grid fits perfectly into a 1280 monitor. On smaller monitors it becomes fluid and adapts to the width of the browser.
Beyond a certain point it uses media queries to serve up a mobile version, which essentially stacks all the columns on top of each other so the flow of information still makes sense.
Scrap 1024! Design once at 1140 for 1280, and with very little extra work, it will adapt itself to work on just about any monitor, even mobile.
The 1140 grid fits perfectly into a 1280 monitor. On smaller monitors it becomes fluid and adapts to the width of the browser.
Beyond a certain point it uses media queries to serve up a mobile version, which essentially stacks all the columns on top of each other so the flow of information still makes sense.
Scrap 1024! Design once at 1140 for 1280, and with very little extra work, it will adapt itself to work on just about any monitor, even mobile.
HannahP
Well-known member
1140? 1280? C30, C60, C90, go! The issue, for me anyway, is that you shouldn't design anything that is meant to be read for a wide display. You can, yes, it's certainly easily doable. But it's bad design to make text difficult to read.
You can't make a hard and fast xxxpx rule, because different resolutions will display those pixels differently. But pick up any random book and a ruler and you'll see that the text is typically not more than 4 or 5 inches wide, depending on the typeface and size. When you make a line longer than that it becomes difficult for a person to read.
I have a very wide monitor here, and I have to open my browsers in about half of the available space, because people use fluid design where they shouldn't. Since I assume we're talking about forums here, and forums are all about reading, it seems like a worthwhile mission to get people to turn away from fluid layouts.
Remember: when you use a fluid layout, the terrorists win.
You can't make a hard and fast xxxpx rule, because different resolutions will display those pixels differently. But pick up any random book and a ruler and you'll see that the text is typically not more than 4 or 5 inches wide, depending on the typeface and size. When you make a line longer than that it becomes difficult for a person to read.
I have a very wide monitor here, and I have to open my browsers in about half of the available space, because people use fluid design where they shouldn't. Since I assume we're talking about forums here, and forums are all about reading, it seems like a worthwhile mission to get people to turn away from fluid layouts.
Remember: when you use a fluid layout, the terrorists win.
