Time to start build wider sites?
 

Just checked TheCounters global stats för resolution:

Resolution Stats
Fri Jul 1 00:03:01 2005 - Sun Jul 31 23:58:40 2005 31.0 Days

1024x768 36474636 (55%)
800x600 15929505 (24%)
1280x1024 8404617 (12%)
1152x864 2162329 (3%)
Unknown 1744199 (2%)
1600x1200 512872 (0%)
640x480 287417 (0%)

/Thomas

I think it's the right time for some to join the rest of the world. My server stats pretty much echo those numbers 800x600 (21%)

You may also want to rethink those standard banners of 468 pixels. That standard was developed when the average computer screen was 640. They don't take up much real estate these days

I only use 740x150 headers these days.

But how many are actually viewing at full screen?

well, here is what i tend to do...porn stuff we do at 800 wide, business stuff (mainstream, webmaster related) we do at 1024 since they tend ot be more on the leading edge of the latest tech stuff

Here's the crucial piece of information that all of your stats are missing. All of my templates and code snippets are for 740px and below. |cry|

i still review and surf on 800 i am old fashioned but i stay this way:D

Yes, me too. I'm slow at accepting change. But I think that John has a good point. Adult has lead the way in much of the technologie that makes the whole Net a good and profitable place, but are we seriously lagging on this issue? I'd love to see a good debate on this. If we know that the vast majority of surfers are using screen resolutions greater 800x600, what are the reasons for us maintaining the status quo?

If we did start building to the next size up, what changes would need to be made? Font sizes would need to be set larger for legibility. How about thumb sizes? Should we increase those, and how is that going to affect bandwidth?

While I don't think that (auto-magically?) adjusting thumb sizes was considered, there's some excellent information on the www.evolt.org site regarding Liquid Design that might be worth applying to free site building.

"Liquid Design for the Web"

There's a lot to be said for using layouts that don't care what size resolution someone is using, or whether they've pulled their window smaller for some reason.

mmm if i look at the sites submitted at linksites i review i see about 65% build on 800 about 33% has an different width on every page on their site ( maybe time to get back to html school again:D oh me sucha bitch sometimes) and 2% has the site build bigger then 1024, i have to say if you build on 800 your always save for every site width:)

All the places I regularly submit to accept my galleries/sites so there is really nothing for me to debate.

Surfn's Links accepts higher resolution sites and galleries as long as they meet my rules...and mood ;)

You've mentioned this before so I sent an email to 2 stats companies to see if they measure the width of the web browser windows (which I always assumed they did) or the actual screen resolution.

That being said, my experience is that almost everyone surfs with one large window open. The exception are the highly technical, engineers and some developers. I'll post the responce from the stats supprt folks but I think 99% or better surf at full screen or very close to that.

None of my friends surf at full screen and back when I did computer consulting very few of my clients did.

I'll care when my numbers dip to below 10% :)

Do your morals allow you to befriend non-technical Micro$oft users? :)

It is true that most of the people I know seem to be Mac users and all my computer clients were Mac users.

Macs users are everywhere down here… strange isn't it?

i review linksites who doesnt care about the width either:D

I think Mac users all seek each other out. Not actively but some cosmic force draws all Mac users together. I think you guys all get together whenver there's a full moon and perform odd rituals involving vodka, fire, live chickens, dancing midgets and who knows what else.

When you open up default microsoft windows XP and open the browser for the first time, it is likely going to be full screen. It's the way most people saw it to start with, and that is the way they will likely use it.

Almost all newer computers out now have a 17 or 19 inch monitor (often LCD) and a resolution of 1280X1024. Most new monitors are optimized and set for that size.

I personally am on 1024x768 - but once my new monitor arrives (next week probably) I will bump up to 1280 X 1024 or maybe even 1600 X 1200.

Larger banners are a good idea. 468 X 60 on a 1280 X 1024 screen is elfin (about 2% of the screen).

800X 600 is dropping pretty rapidly, and there will be a point soon enough where giving up a ton of real estate to satisfy less than 20% of the people will seem like a waste.

Alex

|rock|
And Bingo was his namoooooooooh

i have an 17inch screen i build on 800 i am now finally on that point i dont have to wear my glasses for the puter anymore, now last time i went on my hubbies screen 19inch, he use 1024+ i was blind i cant see it all is so small ..........i have tried to use the bigger size in width but my eyes dont get used to it :(

I'm a Mac user! Have I been missing out on the good tmes?

And yes, I surf with 2-3 windows open usually, none of which are maximized.

Computers are being used for a lot more at home now then just surfing the web and email. Music, movies, chat, fiancees, etc. Doesn't take long to learn that having multiple windows open arranged on the screen makes the computer easier to use.

Screens are getting bigger but are being used for more things at once.

But don't we have the power to force surfers to go full screen with their browser windows? Use the force Luke!

Yeah just add code to your pages to force full screen.

Everything looks silly full screen on my neighbor's 30" LCD.

You can get 4 tables open at the same time on Party Poker at 1600x1200 |thumb

Just out of curiosity, what would all of you 1024x768 backers put in the extra 224 pixels on the left & right?

Another vertical banner?
Bigger thumbs overall?
More recips?

I do build to fit at 800 wide, but you can easily change everything to 100% after you know it fits at 800 & then everyone's at full screen :D

I think I'd would just increase the size of everything until I saw what everyone else was doing. :D I'd definately display more thumbs inline. I don't do much with vertical banners so I probably wouldn't see the the extra width a solitary column of space. I'd view it as more space in general. I like screwing with thumb layouts, so I'm thinking it would be interesting to see what damage I could do with a couple more inches. But that's how I view most things in life. What could I do if I had just a couple more inches?

BTW, I'm not necessarily caring either way, but would like to see the pros, cons, and opinions. It would be easier for me to go on with things as they are, but if the pros outway the cons, well...yeah.

I'm sure everyone has there own opinion on this but I'm still gonna build my pages for 800. I look at the ads from all the computer makers and most low end systems still come with 15" monitors with an upgrade option to 17".
I also feel there is nothing wrong with with a little blank space on either side of the page for people who have high res big monitors. :)

I think allot of this has to do with 2 things. 1) most users are getting up to an XP load. Which after the install will resize your rez to your monitor. Dont ask me how it does it but it does. I use a 19inch and it makes it 1024 my mom uses a 17 and it makes it 800. 2) Of course you can change it but I think the average user is either scared to or don't care or dont even know how.

The hostingcompanies would have to lower their price for bandwidth.
We are their food on the table and they have to meet our demands. |bow|

/Thomas

no need to add stuff because you work on a bigger res. AT 1024x768 for example I use 150 on the long side thumbs, 4 across for landscape, 5 across for portrait (5 spaces between pics). I do NOT fill the entire viewing area.

First off - I of course had to jump on this one - just trying to figure out what they are doing to their fiancees with computers :)

Second - one point that was missed is that typically a surfer that is surfing porn (unless theyre at work) usually just has that screen open in my experience watching folks - the only multitasking they are doing is some ambidextrous use of their hands :)

If you look at a surfers browser they normally have shit all over it - like more tool bars then they know what to do - a list of files on the right etc.

I work between 650 > 750 thats enough if they want big then they can cough up the entrance money :)

I'm currently using a 17" laptop and 22" desktop monitors and I figure a lot of the technical people(who maybe use the internet more) tend to work with the bigger screens and higher resolutions. A bit more than "a little blank space" when somebody resizes my screen to full size.

Also, on a side note:
Looking at things like TheProdukkt, I wonder how the internet will be working in the near future. Are a few pics and a couple of banners going to be the best way to sell porn?

Connections are faster and faster for home user too, so using short DVD-quality trailers etc. may be one thing. Like we use small video clips now as preview.
For now, those are way too large files for average surfer.

I work with 1024x768 or higher cause it make my eyes blow-out if I setup 19" LCD to lower. |loony|

Recently I've had habbit to make freesites with my laptop tho. 800x600 mostly. Gives nicely a totally different point of view!

i think that 20 plus percent justifies

keeping porn in 800x600

Just set your tables to width=100% and make real ugly sites...

Personally I preffer those fixed 700 wide tables.