Retire the 800 Table Rule
 

less than 10% of my traffic runs at 800x600 I think its time to stop building sites for minorities.

Why should 90% of traffic have to suffer and squint to accomidate a poor minority.

Lets face it the time for 800 x 600 was in the last century, anybody still running that size probably has no money to spend on porn anyway. |crazy|

This is stats from thecounter.com for aug 2006:

1024x768 61300035 (55%)
1280x1024 21103528 (19%)
800x600 18625349 (16%)
Unknown 4539013 (4%)
1152x864 3836621 (3%)
1600x1200 890852 (0%)
640x480 336980 (0%)

/Thomas

I'll do that for my free sites when all LL's that I submit to change their <800 rule. I don't want to make two versions of single free site.

As for other sites, I mostly use adjustable design to fill up the screen.

Most sites seem to look better at 800 IMO as they are mainly viewed in a top to bottom fashion rather than side to side, but I'm not too worried if a site is 1024 - haven't been for ages.

I've thought 'bout this and IMHO I've have come to the decision that its probably not a good idea. Mainly I think if you give WM's the extra real estate they'll just overstuff it full of crap tending to make their already marginal sites horrible. Its good discipline to design sites that can resize themselves well. Also, even though your stats may suggest a 1024 preference it doesn't speak to a surfers appreciation for the 800px standard when they want to run multiple windows on their screen. Finally, I can see sites actually getting smaller in the future rather than bigger as content is designed for the smaller screen size of wireless devices.

I thought that we already started changing that rule back in the middle of August - I know Greenguy has already changed his rule 17 and Im sure the rest will probably follow suit - I know I dont have a problem with it (even if my rules havent been changed LOL)

You know, you can build a site at 800 wide, verify that it's not scrolling, change it to 100%, verify that it looks decent at 1024 & then use that :)

Unfortunately, lol, I've gotten used to building 800px sized pages (I also complained about them one time, lol) and I'm not really all that hell bent on increasing the size now. I mean for hubs, etc, sure, make those wider, but there was never any rules dictating the width of hubs, seo pages, etc, etc, etc.

As for galleries / freesites / etc. What are you going to do with the extra space? If you carefully think about your design an 800px sized page looks pretty damn good compared to some of the sprawling pages that just use up space because it's there.

Maybe their sites look like crap because they're on standard-size resolutions trying to design for outdated resolutions.
Since we're talking about numbers and majorities here, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that the majority of surfers don't tile windows side by side so they can see two sites at once when surfing for entertainment reasons.
Okay, so at some unknown time in the future, when the numbers show that the majority of surfing is done on little 3" screens, we can demand that everyone's site be 170 pixels wide. *Until* then, designing for the majority of surfers is best.

I wonder how may people surf with their window maximized?
Personally I don't care how wide a site is. It's the design that counts.

Perhaps it's the dinosaur in me, but based on the above numbers...I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel on 800 wide yet. The time will come for sure, but 16% remains at 800.

Look at it this way...by building for 800 wide, you're serving up a quality experience for 93%+ of your target market. Conversely, by not building for 800...you're effectively alienating 16% of that audience, by forcing them to side scroll (possibly missing your ads if they're on the right of the screen).

In a brick and mortar business, would you have someone stand outside the door and direct 1.6 of every 10 customers to a tacky warehouse based solely on the fact that they arrived to your store in an older model car?

In reality, if you build correctly...your sites will look good at all resolutions. Yes, you do give up some real estate...but you don't force any appreciable percentage of your customers into a lesser surfing experience either.

This reasoning was why I lauched the re-design of FPP to fit at 800 wide...and it looks good all the way up to my screen size at 1280. Yep, some white space on both sides at wider res...but so what...

I build all my freesites 740 px wide and I don' intend to change that anytime soon. They're guaranteed to fit in an 800 window and still look quite good (in my not-so-humble opinion :D ) on my 19-inch monitor at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I review at that resolution also. I'm not a side scroll nazi, but if there is one at my setup it has to be pretty huge.

I personally like my sites 800 wide as that seems to be about the same size as printed stuff and also not everyone surfs full screen, I don't. That being said I've already changed my rules to follow Greenguy's rules of 1024 wide.

I probably should have mentioned that in my prior post. Given the number of lists who are lightening up on the rule, I will do the same. If a site is close and is otherwise clean, I'll let it a little side scroll slide...but will probably let the submitter know they do have a little side scroll :)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I surf and review sites at 800 wide. My husband teases me and says "nobody" uses that resolution anymore. Anywho, I'm not changing anytime soon but I suppose that for both my link lists, I too will go easier on sites with a little side scroll. |loony|

i build (oke if i build something) and review at the 800 width, i think it looks better, i wont kick all who submit wider then 800 (that depens on the linksite and how all the pages are from the free site,because alot dont have their free site totally on the 1024 size if they build that way, i mean first page, 1024, second 800 galleries 1200+, i am like the curtains have to match the room, so if you build on width 800 or 1024 keep your fucking pages of your free site all the same width|catfight| ) but hell some use VERY BIG FONTS ON THE 1024 WIDTH and i dont like big fonts|angry|the chinese dutch woman has spoken:D

I like adjustable sites
 

Sticking to your idea would be the least headaches for everybody.

I like adjustable sites, but I worry about too many changing variables, with all the browser and font issues.

To me the perfect site right now would be 1000 tables and all .gif text. Static perfection but a pain for updates :)

Hi DJilla
 

Well generally I would like to make my graphics proportionally bigger more detail is much nicer to view.
I think the 800 rule is limiting the quality of our designs. For example digital cameras work on the same principles as web pages and higher res gives better quality.

You make a good point with your wireless remark.
I know a few people making some real money with wireless. I am a dinasaur and still not up to speed in that area yet.

Maybe there will be new domains .cell and we can all design tiny 100 pixel sites ;)

Summing Up
 

Ok thanks to everybody so far. You have all made some excellent points and arguments.

I still think my strongest argument is the quality one.
I guess I want more resolution for my designs, and I am going to fight for that right. I can't believe anybody thinks 800 looks nicer than 1000

I feel 1000 wide will increase my sales and by the sounds of it will not restrict acceptance of my new free sites to the majority of link sites. And I believe if we all start doing this then the last few link sites will change their rules to match the demand for more detail. |club|

Wow Dave...to be blunt, that's probably not the best attitude to get people to work with you. As has been said many times, wide does not necessarily mean quality...any more than 800 wide means crappy.

As mentioned previously, I'm not ready to force 15% of my surfers to any appreciable side scroll just yet. I'd rather cater to 90%+ of my market, than 75%.

But of course, it's your call...just like it's a reviewers call whether or not they list your 1000 pixel wide sites. Guess only time will tell...but I for one will not be 'forced' into anything |club|

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, Dave :-))

I personally think that if a person can't make a site look decent at 800 (because there's very little actual "content" on a typical free site), then increasing it to 1024 (or 1000) may just have the effect of spreading the rubbish around and about the screen a little more.

That said, show us one of your "nicer" 1000 wide designs :-)

Huh
 

Attitude,

I thought you said a small side scoll was ok. what does that mean ? 801 I misunderstood you is all. I never said 800 was crappy just 1000 allows for higher quality. Seems to me you have the attitude here more than me. My comments were in no way bad attitude they were well thought out and humorous. But maybe my humour was a little too dry, |jackinthe

Hi Jeremy
 

As soon as I make my first one you will see it.
I plan on making 100 free sites but I wanted to establish what width they should be first. When I make them it will be a large task so I wanted to make something that would look good for the future as much as now.

Indeed...and I stand by that...a 'little' side scroll will slide by, provided other standards are met. However, a 25% increase is not a 'little' side scroll...any more than 15% is a 'little' number of customers.

That said, and I alluded to this in Greenies thread regarding his new rules. This is by NO means saying I insist on being on pages with LOR. However, if a site is built for Greenies new standards and has his recip on it...I'll most likely ignore the side scroll issue.

We'll simply agree to disagree on the quality issue, as I see great quality sites every day built to 800 wide. And we'll also agree to disagree on the attitudes...I must have missed the humor in the tone of your post. If it was there, I missed it...no harm...no foul.

Wait a minute... MrYum had an attitude? |shocking|

I always thought Yum was so busy being a nice guy and getting laid he didn't have the energy to pretend mean! |loony|

I have to say that having to fit pages within 800 have been a little annoying to me. Since I work in 2560x1600 normally, 800 seems tiny...
so I was happy that Greenie decided to change this and I hope that more will do the same.

And hey, when those 16% surfers will have to scroll sideways all day long to see some titties, maybe they'll get a clue and upgrade their stuff.
I mean, porn is usually drives people to by new technology anyway, right :D

Well, while it's nice to educate surfers about the quality of their equipment, I somehow don't think that they'll rush into the store to buy bigger screens for your sites.

What will happen, though, is that they'll click little "X" button on your site and go buy porn on other free site.

I was thinking the very same thing... |sad|

BUT, that doesn't mean a site designed for a wider screen won't sell better for those surfers who already run at higher resolutions.

For example, a good friend of mine who operates his computer from his couch and uses his big screen TV as a monitor and has a monthly budget for fun stuff. |thumb

Here's the big question: do you want your product to be optimized for as many of your surfers as possible, or do you want to focus on a smaller group?

I have always been had the school of thought that you design for the least common denominator. Using percentages works much better than by the amount of pixels for everyone.

Until, 800 wide users are down to 0, stick with it. Most people that buy memberships to pay sites really don't know a lot about the internets :) So, many of them are probably still using dial up and a 15" monitor.

My group is already "small" so I really don't want to shrink it just because I have widescreen notebook.

If you can sell with 800px you will sell with 1000px and even 10000px for that matter.

Jim has a good point with percentages. Optimize for everyone.

The problem is people tend to focus on what amounts to minutia. Let me give you an example...Awhile back someone complained viciously about TGP rules (I've also seen the same about LL rules) and since I happen to review for a few TGPs, I was familiar with their galleries. They ranted about minutia little rules instead of the fact that they just didn't know how to build an effective gallery. Their thumbs sucked, their design sucked, their sales pitch sucked, and they were using overused content. Basically it comes down to, don't blame the dressing when it's the salad.

Now, I'm not saying you're this type of person, and I'm sure you do great designs, but from personal experience it's always been simple clean designs that focus in on the content that makes me the most sales. 800px or 1000px...if you're not making sales at 800px the extra 200px ain't gonna help you any.

Also, it's the factor of working in the system and not working outside the system. Rules will change as the time changes, but instead of butting your head against a brick wall it's just better to perfect your designs for what's most widely accepted by all LL, etc.

I know very few that do. I and most of my friends usually have their browsers set for around a 2/3-wide screen so they can see their mail, IM, and video player windows on the desktop as well. So a 1024x768 screen resolution with a more than 800-wide page means the surfer will still have to side-scroll unless they open their browser to full-screen.

I personally run at 1280x960 and think 800-wide pages look exactly right, since I don't need to open my browser full-screen to see 'em.

Personally I find that people designing freesites that are width scalable are generally designing sites that look like shit. Not all do though, some scale nicely and still look good but a majority of scalable freesite designs have elements spread out way too thin and everything looks empty to me. Like they were designed in 1995.

As for general design that incorporates graphical headers, I think 770px wide is the way to go. You cant scale a jpg or a gif. it just doesn't work that way. I've used layering and css to make elements scalable in graphical headers but it's still spread too weird and doesn't work when it's a centered design. To allow the body of the page to scale and the header to sit still is doable. Just depends on how you build your header. Left or right justify the header and allow it to scale over a background image that suits it, and you're good to go.

Overall though, 770px wide is perfect, it's compact, to the point, everything is easy to access without much effort on anyone's part and it keeps banner happy designers in check... well.. for the most part. It is a bit limiting on placement of elements though. Personally I'm starting to get damn tired of the simple middle single column or one column on the side design. More than that and you lose valuable real estate. So I use CSS a lot now to put columns where they fit nicely and control text wrapping to work around it. It works well for scalable designs too but for my bitching-galleries blog I went back to 800x600 to keep things simple and controllable when it comes to images and such.

As we should, we take people seriously who come to the boards looking for ways to enhance their businesses by one or two points. So how can we even entertain the suggestion that we do something to alienate 15% of our potential customers?

That apart, many people using higher resolutions and bigger screens open multiple windows, rather than using the whole screen for just one. Big-screen or not, there is also a maximum line-width with which people are most comfortable. That applies primarily to text, but even on highly graphical sites we still want surfers to focus on enter buttons, specific text, etc, so it cannot make sense to overwhelm those hot-spots.

In short, design for 770-780 pixels wide. It is the usable width of 800x600 screens (with the most common chroming) and a comfortable width at higher resolutions. By all means ensure that your design is at its best at 1024, since that is currently the most common size, but it should not degrade badly, ideally not at all, at lower or higher values.

Anway that is only part of the picture (no pun intended). A lot of visitors have the option, whether you like it or not, to re-scale your text with a simple click of their mouse rollers. Instead of ignoring that, since the results can be horrible if not planned, cater for that possibility and give all your visitors a choice to see your site(s) as they prefer. Sure you will have problems with animated gifs and poor-quality graphics, but otherwise there is nothing to prevent graphics, as well as text, being scalable.

I really don't understand those who use huge screens and ultra-high resolutions for design: this is business, not a competition to see who scores the most geek-cool points. If you must design for only one group of visitors, at least make it the largest group: 19 inches at 1024.

I think everyone should make sites that are at a MINIMUM 1600 wide :)

Although I of course agree that no one should be alienated, I'm not sure that a little side scrolling will infuriate the 800x600 people so much that they will immediately close their window and go elsewhere... or write a letter or something.

It's not very difficult to stick to the 800 rule, but it would be nice to have some wiggle room... but with all LL rules out there threatening to hurl my ass to their blacklist every other sentence, if it says max 800 wide, I'm taking it literarily.
On the other hand, if it would say max 1024, that doesn't mean that all my tables will always be fixed at that big size.

It would be nice to know a bit more about this statistics though.
I mean, I've read many posts where traffic from certain geographic locations is unwanted. Could there be something similar with this?
Maybe 98% of those 16% is a group of people who will, for whatever reason, probably never ever pay for porn..
(Or maybe they're actually the group of folks who pay for 90% of all memberships online :D )

Anyone know about a more detailed study in this area?

Hi Mr Yum
 

I checked out your site in all resolutions up to 1280.
Looks great. Are you sure you'r not bigger than 800;)

I guess just coz I'm :D when I write something it does not always come across in text. After reading everything posted, some by people I know and respect I have conceded and my new table size for the new sites will be fixed at 750 I don't feel like wrapping my head aound auto resizing. |jackinthe

Hello iman
 

I was thinking along the same lines as far as the stats. Would be nice to know the size stats for members of adult paysites.

But for now as far as size goes I have to agree with Jim. |thumb

Thanks...the site was designed for 800, but keeping it looking acceptable at wider res was also a priority.

Very true, sometimes things do get lost in the written word...no worries here |shake|

The time will come for wider free sites, some say it has already arrived. Myself, I think it will be here within a year at the outside...though I could be wrong...it's happened before :D

I think the design should be secondary to the porn. In my experience the more amateur (but still organized) a page works the better it converts. I think most surfers are at the lower end of the IQ range so it's best to make things dumby proof and EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

This includes scrolling -- some might not even know how to scroll from side to side, some can barely operate a mouse :)

16% of the market is very huge, and you're also assuming that people will view your site at full screen. What if they don't want to?

Are you sure that you really want to publicly bash (and underestimate) the people who put food on your table?

In my experience, it's the people who don't appreciate & value their customers that tend to fail in most businesses.