Post your thoughts on phasing out 800x600 and start designing for 1024x768 and up
 

Think it's too early still?

I just looked and 85% of my users are running 1024 x 768 or higher and the other 15% of my users are running 800x600 or smaller.

Does pissing off 15% to make the other 85% happier make sense?

At what point do you take the plunge? 10%, 5%?

Discuss......

How do you find out which resolution they are surfing? I have awstats but see only the browser, not the resolution.

BV, the theory is that you can satisfy 100% of them if you use the lower size. This topic seems to come up about every 6 months, and each time it gets closer to "bigger screen" time. Some of the blogs and things I am working on use larger screen widths.

Alex

I'm not familiar with aw stats.
I'm not sure if you can get that info from the Apache log file either. Something tells me no. When I parse my log files with FastStats Analyzer there is no browser resolution information.

The stats I posted above are from using http://www.statcounter.com/ on a few of my pages.

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/February/res.php

I use 1024x768 and it doesn't make me happier if a site is bigger (made for 1024). But it does piss me off if I have to scroll horizontally.

I just thought of an idea, I'm going to place an invisible counter inside the members area and check the resolution stats of the "paying" customers.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't of used the term happy. My main point is to make use of all the available "billboard" real estate on the potential customers monitor.

Gotcha on the stats. With the billboard real estate that can be overcome by using a % table width once you know it fits at 800x600, but obviously sometimes it's hard to get things looking how you want exactly in both resolutions. I tend to make my freesites specifically at 800x600 'compliant' and tinker more with main sites to make the most of both resolutions.

Well put, with a little thought you can make that 800x600 area the "focal point" of your pages. :) Afterall, it is about drawing attention to your message!

My concern working with a very large monitor is that when the browser is maximized, those 480X80 banners look freaking puny! at my current 1600X1200, I can put THREE of them side by side and still have spacing. That means if I build a site for 800X600, then I am looking at more empty space besides those banners than there is banner. At a certain point it isn't just a question of billboard space per se, but that the banners themselves are probably too small relative to the viewing area.

Alex

I build to fit 800x600 but if I use banners I try to use big ones so that the surfers with high resolutions don't see a tiny little ad

Banners have been dead for me for years. If you want to add something to text use headers :D

The issue that seems to get somewhat forgotten is the fact that you shouldn't build for higher resolustions while leaving your font and image sizes the same as you've used for 8x6. Those things should be resized relative to the page size for easier viewing. Everyone who wants to build for the higher resolutions always seem to want to squeeze in more ad space around the original page which was constructed for 8x6, and is very difficult to read at 10x7. If you are being fair to your poor surfers' eyes, your 10x7 page shouldn't look any different to them than what 8x6 pages look to me while I'm surfing at 8x6.

Did that make any sense or did I talk myself into a circle again?

Mine is set for 1152x720 but I don't surf with my browser taking up the whole screen.

My thinking has always been to build for the least common denominator. I remember when java and javascript was just cool and not considered evil. But it took years before IE decided to include it in their browser. They just kept fighting it and fighting it coming up with their own crap. Until finally they decided to use it.

So, until you see 90% or more using more than 800x600, stick with it. Of course, you could always design 2 copies and let them choose. When I built my first adult site, there was a little script that looked at the resolution and sent the person to the proper designed site. Then again, that was back when you could make a nice living on just one site. So, I had plenty of time to play around with it.

Forget what the site below is about, that's not the point of this example. But open this url in a window the full size of your screen. Then grab your window and start pulling it smaller and smaller while watching what happens to that page elements and text sizes...

http://goldpanner.ca/goldpanner/index.htm

It made perfect sense to me :) Very good point too.

My screen is 2560x1024, since I have dual monitors, and I agree 800x600 is TINY. Because of my dual monitors, I surf full sized in one screen, so 1280x1024.

I've been using a lot more banners that are 500x100 or 500x150 plus text to make the ad stand out more, but I still build adult sites for 800x600. I build non-adult though for 1024x768.

I tell you one thing, the old paysites built for 800x600 look really goofy in my screen, since most of the tour pages are only 400high. I like the "reality style" better where they may only be 800 wide, but they go down the page a lot further.

I also suggest centering your sites in the window. I always start out with 750 wide centered table around the whole page. Nothing like surfing with all this real estate, and seeing a site crammed into the left corner to look REALLY odd.

I just looked at theredcherry, I have an even 20% now using 800x600. 58% are using 1024x768, the rest are using something larger than 800x600.

I don't think I have ever seen that before. The source code looks encrypted |crazy|

I do not agree. With this logic there would be no reason to have higher resolutions and larger monitors. The whole advantage to higher resolutions and larger monitors is to be able to have more usable space on the screen.

Jim, interestingly, by your logic we could all build for 640x480 because then you won't piss anyone off... or perhpas 320x160 to make the atari and apple II people happy too, right?

I very, very rarely see anyone using 800x600 in real life anymore, as most computers made in the last 3 or 4 years all use larger screen resolutions. We have also gone a long way from 14 inch to 15 inch to 17 inch monitors now being the "bare minimum" that gets sold with a system. A quick check through bestbuy, example, shows that their smallest crt type monitor is 17 inches... all of $130 dollars.

We are pretty much down to the same level that we all stopped paying attention to the 640x480 screens... it might be time.

Alex

I guess my Vulcan mind trick didn't work. :D
My point exactly!
Higher resolution is for clarity and bigger screens are due to the fact that we are impressed by large things. Keep in mind, just because some surfing fool has his/her screen res set above the good ol' 800x mark, it doesn't mean that they're viewing on a 19 or 23 inch monitor. I believe most users still employ a 17 inch monitor, as do I, and I'm here to tell you, most sites built for 1024x and above are really hard to read. I keep my res set at 800x600 because it's the most viewer-friendly resolution. Here's my piss poor analogy in action: I watch Deadwood on a 35 inch television. My friend watches it on his 50 inch television. We are watching are seeing the same picture. He doesn't see anything more than I do, he just see's it magnified.

I can't think of any friends for family who currently own anything larger than a 17 inch monitor. (I should mention that I am very socially limited, so I am using a very small market sampling.) Anyway, I think the number we really need is the actual montior sizes in use. As I said in a previous post - 1024x and above tends to be fairly difficult to read on a 17 inch monitor.

17" is the standard issue monitor these days. 1024xwhatever or so seems to be about the default resolution with those monitors, although some people so step it down to 800x600.

Rather than increasing in size, many people are moving to LCD monitors instead of CRTs.

My 17 inch secondary monitor is set to 1280x1024 without issues... the 20 inch is set to 1600x1200 (the smaller monitor does email, video display, and ftp work). When I first set it up it felt slightly small, but now when I use my laptop at 800x600, I feel like I am sitting way too close to the screen.

Alex

Allready doing that in my members areas.. Here are stats from one :
1024x768 - 56.98%
800x600 - 21.09%
1280x1024 - 13.22%
Other - 4.19%
1152x864 - 3.62%
1600x1200 - 0.44%
640x480 - 0.41%
Varies a bit from site to site, with 800x600 between 18 & and 23%

Other stats that some might be interesting :
Javascript Enabled - 98.79%
Javascript Disabled - 1.21%

Mac OS X - 4.11%
Linux - 0.36% (and 99% of those hackers *lol*)

Screen Colors
32 Bit (16.7M) - 90.70%
16 Bit (65K) - 7.25%
8 Bit (256) - 0.13%

Interesting information. According to your stats, I would be making navigation difficult for 21% of paying customers if I designed my sites larger.
Thanks for that input. :)

I dont personally think that the 85% would be pissed off. However the 15% sure would

After reading every ones posts and thinking about it some more, there are still too many 800x600 users. I think it will be safer when they fall below 3 or 4%.
I think it's going to be another year or maybe two years before it will be safe to take the full 1024 plunge.

I've been making all my designs 1024x768+ for quite some time now. 1024x768 is the standard with technology (all new monitors come 1024x768+).

I figure, if they are using 800x600 they are used to scrolling. If not, hopefully I can piss them off enough for them to upgrade their monitors. In turn making that 15% statistic drop another notch :D

For those of you that think 1024 should be the new standard, I'd like to know what exactly you'd like to do with the extra 224?

large banners? More images/thumbs in the rows?

You know, if you build a page using a 750 table, verify that it fits at 800 wide & then change the table properties from 750 pixels to 100% you'll take up the entire screen at every resolution from 800 up :)

GG, when you do that, you still have these weenie little banners, and your text is suddenly too small for the space, and all your line spacing goes to shit.

In free sites, the extra 224 would only be to perhaps run larger ads or more complex ad pieces. However, on sites like TGPs, link sites, or blogs, you can add a whole extra column down the side providing more links or more info or more advertising in the same vertical space.

Basically, you can put more stuff "above the fold", which is an important point in getting surfer attention.

224 pixels is actually a big pile of space - almost 33% more than a 750 wide page.

Alex

This is going to be an ongoing dilemma for a couple of more years, until 800x600 usage drops well below 10%.

I've been building my galleries within a ~750 wide table that centers on the page, with the thumbs larger than what I'd been using in the past, slightly larger font sizes, and for the most part avoid using the old 468 wide banners.

I've had a few 700x100 banners made, but for the most part I use only text links.

I get some grief for having a "no horizontal scroll at 800" rule on my TGP submits, but my stats show me that about 25% of my traffic still uses 800x600.

I have a new paysite coming out that is about 900 wide. Looks nice and big. :D

Will it piss off some surfers? Maybe a few but the big pics in their face I hope will make up for it. And the membersarea is 100% compatible for 800x600. Inside is all about navigation.

I'm of a similar mindset to Toby. As long as over 10% of my surfers are at 800 wide, I can't ignore that traffic. Once it falls below 10, the decision gets a bit more difficult. Once it falls below 5...it's time to get BIGGER :D

geography
 

I think it all depends where you are. Here in Hawaii 15 is average 17 is huge. In NYC, everyone has 19 or better! After a year of designing on my 17 inch and going to nyc to show off my sites. My urls didnt look to impressive on a really nice 20 inch! suddenly everything looked TINY, super small. in my stats - 60% are on 1152x864 - 30% are on 1280x1024 and 10% are on 832x624. ALOHA

I terms of what I would do exactly with the extra space, well... larger thumbs and more spacious design is the first thing that comes to mind. Im sure many would litter the space with more ads.
ALOHA

I always look at things like this with $ in mind as I'm sure most are. After reading this, it seems most of the surfers using the 8x6 average about around 20%. Just put it in simple numbers and then make the choice. If you are luckly enough to pull in say 10k a year from a site then roughly 2k of that is from 8x6 sufers. Would you risk 20% of your profit for more ad space that may or may not pay off? If it does, is it going to equal the 20% you might have pissed off? If you just wait 1 or 2 years then maybe you can go for it, but it just seems like a big risk to me, when there is roughly a standard already.