Hi all,

I think this topic has been discussed a lot elsewhere. May be in this forum, too. But I did not find when I searched for it. So I thought it is an important issue most people are facing while designing their sites.

According to my site stats, 60% people who visit my site have screen resolution of 1024 x 768, 28% have 1280x1024, 12%  have 800x600 and rest have other resolutions.

I don't want to lose the 12% of my visitors, (I have to think of other visitors with less capabilities). So I still design sites with 800 x 600. I don't want to bore my other viewers by leaving lot of spaces blank while catering to the mere 12%.

Lot of site including most forums (Site Reference, too) are designed for 1024 x 768.

I have designed few sites which auto-scale to screen resolution-- is it the best practice? What do the experts say about it?

Its an issue that a lot of people debate. When I designed the forums and the main site to be 1024 x 768, I did it mainly because I wanted the space to work with and I figured that the vast majority of people visiting the site would be using at least 1024 x 768.  For those that were not, they are probably used to finding sites that are 'too big' for their screens.

What I have found since then is that about 10% of the visitors are using 800 x 600 resolution.  That is a decent number of people.

When I redesign the site next, I'll either go with a fluid layout or a fixed layout for the 800 x 600 resolution.  It certainly is not fun designing this way, but it may be the only way to appeal to all our visitors...

I made my pages for 1024 x 768, but made the main content in a border so it can be read on  800 x 600 without scrolling.

There's a java script out there that will resize your page to the users specs. Anyone try it?

What if the user has a very small screen without javascript?

I haven't used it.  I'd prefer to use a fluid layout than a javascript that does that...

SiteReference wrote:

What if the user has a very small screen without javascript?

I haven't used it.  I'd prefer to use a fluid layout than a javascript that does that...

I guess some people are out of luck;). Me if it's a customer. I redid my front page layout to where I like it, but the coding is bad. I aim to learn to do it again after I finish ome research.


I asked a question about RSS somewhere on here and did't get an answer:( I need some advice on it.

beatledave wrote:

SiteReference wrote:

What if the user has a very small screen without javascript?

I haven't used it.  I'd prefer to use a fluid layout than a javascript that does that...

I guess some people are out of luck;). Me if it's a customer. I redid my front page layout to where I like it, but the coding is bad. I aim to learn to do it again after I finish ome research.


I asked a question about RSS somewhere on here and did't get an answer:( I need some advice on it.

http://forums.site-reference.com/topic/ … -web-page/

Best web design pratice is always to make fluid web pages that fit on any size screen and that work in any browser.  It is acceptable to "target" a couple of browser sizes like beetledave says:

I made my pages for 1024 x 768, but made the main content in a border so it can be read on  800 x 600 without scrolling.

It is NOT acceptable practice to design web sites that only work in one particular browser.  Of course there's no web design police and it IS poetic justice to design pages that DO NOT work with IE (especially the upcoming IE7).

texxs wrote:

Best web design pratice is always to make fluid web pages that fit on any size screen and that work in any browser.  It is acceptable to "target" a couple of browser sizes like beetledave says:

I made my pages for 1024 x 768, but made the main content in a border so it can be read on  800 x 600 without scrolling.

Designing a webpage is a challenge these days. If we target IE, which is the most used browser, it doesn't really work with Firefox- the second most used browser. And web designers should keep in mind- other platforms like Mac & Safari.. The format goes out of control when targeting all browsers. So it is either good design for particular browser or simple design for all browsers. This is my experience.

Using graphics in web designs gives you good design, but compatibility is the challenge- specially screen resolution. Wish all browsers were compatible.

Until now, it seems fluid design is what we need to follow, but need to sacrifice graphics which don't support fluid design as they don't scale automatically.

I know this may seem like a bit of a comprimise, but this is why I am moving closer to a philosophy of simple elegance with website design.  Simple websites are easier to make compatable with all browsers, but they can still be quite striking.  A good example of such a site is http://www.alistapart.com.  Another website which I just found is http://www.uxmag.com/.

Simple, clean, not overly crowded, and they work pretty well across multiple browsers.

SiteReference wrote:

I know this may seem like a bit of a comprimise, but this is why I am moving closer to a philosophy of simple elegance with website design.  Simple websites are easier to make compatable with all browsers, but they can still be quite striking.  A good example of such a site is http://www.alistapart.com.  Another website which I just found is http://www.uxmag.com/.

http://www.uxmag.com/ has an amazing design. If you make your browser bigger than 1024 x 768 .. the whole site scales and without any glitches.. The design is elegant and simple, too.

Great example, Site Reference !

I shouldn't be showing you guys this stuff!  It's technically competition! :o 

I will say, though, one of my greatest pet peeves is saying that you are in beta.  Such a horrible cliche...

What works for me...
I do my homework and look at all the major sites that are successful in business.
I look at the top sites listed with Alexa (at least it's good for that) and I see what they are doing.
It's a fair assumption to think they invested a decent amount of money researching these things. Why shouldn't I benefit from the work they did?
Besides... 800X600 also makes better printable pages for the less then slightly tech savvy.

Like I said... this is what works for me.

Hi,

Yes this technical issue is verry important.

Just use a little software that is called Sizer. It will help you when designing your web site.

Trust me... 

Hrvoje

incomeblast wrote:

Hi all,

According to my site stats, 60% people who visit my site have screen resolution of 1024 x 768, 28% have 1280x1024, 12%  have 800x600 and rest have other resolutions.

I don't want to lose the 12% of my visitors, (I have to think of other visitors with less capabilities). So I still design sites with 800 x 600. I don't want to bore my other viewers by leaving lot of spaces blank while catering to the mere 12%.

I set my site up in a 3 column format, Anyone arriving with 800x600 will see the left and the main column. They don't even have to scroll over to the right column since the main column has the true content.

http://illusionsetc.blogspot.com/

incomeblast wrote:

.. the whole site scales and without any glitches..

I had a different experience when resizing their page.

incomeblast,

I think you said it best yourself:
"I don't want to lose the 12% of my visitors..."
"have designed few sites which auto-scale to screen resolution..."

Personally, I still develop to include the 800x600 crowd.  12% is an aweful lot of people to alienate.  I prefer to use a flexible layout when I can, but will resort to a fixed layout to 800x600 specs when necessary.  Alot depends on the design elements I'm working with.  You can do alot to flex your graphics to cut down on the amount of fixed width sites you create by utilizing CSS.  I've made Images that span the width of the screen appear to stretch without distortion using CSS and essentially letting two halves of the image slide overtop of each other.

Sometimes a fixed width is preferrable depending on the site content.  I know personally, if a site has alot of written text, I don't want it to stretch all the way across my screen.  It gets really hard to read when lines of text are a foot wide!  Using a fixed width layout in these kinds of circumstances is justified to make the site more user friendly.

Ultimately, I think every site is different, and therefore the content, purpose, and audience will dictate much of the layout decisions. 

Just my 2 cents.