Post your thoughts on phasing out 800x600 and start designing for 1024x768 and up - Page 2

Maj. Stress · 2006-03-19, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taass

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%

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.

samebb · 2006-03-19, 10:28 PM

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

[BV] · 2006-03-20, 03:03 AM

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.

potter · 2006-03-20, 05:56 AM

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

Greenguy · 2006-03-20, 08:32 AM

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

RawAlex · 2006-03-20, 10:32 AM

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

Toby · 2006-03-20, 10:46 AM

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.

Ramster · 2006-03-20, 11:34 AM

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

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.

MrYum · 2006-03-20, 01:02 PM

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

Loganp8000 · 2006-03-20, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

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.

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

juggernaut · 2006-03-20, 10:28 PM

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.

2006-03-19, 10:28 PM	#27
samebb Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 8	I dont personally think that the 85% would be pissed off. However the 15% sure would __________________

2006-03-20, 03:03 AM	#28
[BV] I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 292	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. __________________ BVBucks.Com BVCash.Com

2006-03-20, 05:56 AM	#29
potter Rock stars ... is there anything they don't know? Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chicago & Denver Posts: 18	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 __________________ the best babe blog design Last edited by potter; 2006-03-20 at 06:00 AM..

2006-03-20, 08:32 AM	#30
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,929	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 __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2006-03-20, 10:46 AM	#32
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 4,826	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. __________________ Latex Vixens Babes In Boots Well Heeled Women Dressing For Sex Stocking Vixens

2006-03-20, 10:32 AM	#31
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	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

2006-03-20, 11:34 AM	#33
Ramster Life is good Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 11,867	I have a new paysite coming out that is about 900 wide. Looks nice and big. 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. __________________ Pornstar Legends \| Live Cam Model Shows \| Hungarian Girls Skype: robmurray999

2006-03-20, 01:02 PM	#34
MrYum Arghhhh...submit yer sites ya ruddy swabs! Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sunny Florida! Posts: 5,108	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 __________________ Porno Flixxx Submissions SOTI Site Submissions Free Porn Resource Submissions

2006-03-20, 10:28 PM	#36
juggernaut Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Central Jersey! If I was rich and powerful I would dress as my avatar does. Posts: 1,448	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.