Web Design Forums

lucidcreations · 05-10-2005, 06:39

Hi All,

I know this crops up now and again, but I was wondering what page width you guys are design to right now. All of my stuff until the last site has been based on 760px for the width. It seems like I could finally start designing for 955px, because very few people browse on a screen less than 1024 x 768.

So how wide are yours?

pgo · 05-10-2005, 06:48

I find 750px to be good for most things. Easy to divide up if I need a sidebar. Say, sidebar 200-250, body 500-550.

I'm doing one right now that's 700px wide.

According to www.thecounter.com/stats/ 25% are still using 800x600...this is no time to be switching.

There's always fluid width, but those often look awful and unreadable at high resolutions, which is why I ignore Mr. Nielsen in that respect.

lucidcreations · 05-10-2005, 07:11

My last had to be 955px after a heated debate with the cliunt.

I tend to use 760px and divde it into 4 x 190px columns just to start the layout. Grid systems you gotta love em. Well Josef Muller-Brockmann does / did.

pgo · 05-10-2005, 07:26

The one I'm working on ATM is 700px wide with 100px columns.

lucidcreations · 05-10-2005, 07:30

nice.

Transmogrify · 05-10-2005, 09:43

There's been massive debate about this on a mailing list I'm on. Some guy moaning at sites not working on his 1600x1200 screen when he claims they should be able to, if coded correctly (essentially using ems for everything, images included). I'm going to do some tests this week and see how/if it's possible.

My screen res is 1920 x 1200. Means I can two browsers on the screen at once.. jazz site on the left, DT on the right. Everyone is a winner.

Limbo · 05-10-2005, 09:43

800 x 600

screen res stats for 2005 (scroll down)

aspiramedia · 05-10-2005, 09:59

800 x 600 no doubt. But I'll often make it fluid.

lucidcreations · 05-10-2005, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transmogrify

There's been massive debate about this on a mailing list I'm on. Some guy moaning at sites not working on his 1600x1200 screen when he claims they should be able to, if coded correctly (essentially using ems for everything, images included). I'm going to do some tests this week and see how/if it's possible.

My screen res is 1920 x 1200. Means I can two browsers on the screen at once.. jazz site on the left, DT on the right. Everyone is a winner.

I've got 2 x 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro (as a few might know

) both on 1600 x 1200, great for print stuff. 3200 x 1200 desktop.

weldo · 05-10-2005, 13:20

The last guy in my job fucked up by not even looking at the stats - and 44% of users were getting a poor user experience, (8 x 6 res but the site was framed and built for 1024- double ouch !)

I still had to argue for move back to 8 x 6 with the boss...

ZenElements · 05-10-2005, 13:40

OUCH! Just saw the results of the pole, I would not have thought that there are so many people still running around on 800 by 600 resolution, ESPECIALLY on this forum, but there you are...

I am personally running at 1280 by 1024 and i'm hoping to upgrade to a Dual Output Graphics Card with my two 21" monitors and run a desktop resolution of around 3200 by 1200.

And yes, although this pole is posted often, it is always good to see it and find out who runs what. So, thank you lucidcreations.

sub · 05-10-2005, 13:56

Most of Joe public don't have 21" monitors, and PCs still only rarely ship with 1024 x 768 pixel screens. Isn't it the end user we design for in first place?

Limbo · 05-10-2005, 13:58

zen - I think the question is what size screen we design for... not what res we use to work... unless I have the wrong end...

pgo · 05-10-2005, 14:25

Limbo's right, but on that topic, I run my 19" monitor at 1280x1024 and my 27" Sony WEGA TV at 800x600. Can't use it for design, but it's good for watching downloaded videos and whatnot.

Rakan · 05-10-2005, 16:23

same as pgo... I tend to design at 750 (sidebar maybe 200 - 250, body 500 - 550).. sometimes I'll do designs that are a little narrower (500 - 700 at times)... but I still target 800 x 600 res...

datahound · 05-10-2005, 16:57

I try to design sites where the body is 780 wide (leave 20 for the scrollbar) but center that in a 100% table to fill the whitespace on bigger monitors.
www.datahound.co.uk
www.kergarec.com

oli · 05-10-2005, 17:49

datahound doesnt work

datahound · 05-10-2005, 18:14

in what way?
what browser are you using?

Transmogrify · 05-10-2005, 18:30

it's working here in FF1.07

datahound · 05-10-2005, 18:33

Yes I just checked that too, thought i'd fucked up.

Maybe he meant aesthetically?

View Poll Results: How wide are yours?
600 x 300 (640 x 480) - "You can never be sure"	0	0%
760 x 420 (800 x 600) - "Don't forget us"	19	65.52%
955 x 600 (1024 x 768) - "Power to the people"	6	20.69%
Or above - "I'll drag you into the future kicking and screaming!"	4	13.79%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

05-10-2005, 06:39	#1 (permalink)
lucidcreations Part of the 3 out of 4 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: cheshire Posts: 2,077	Page Size Hi All, I know this crops up now and again, but I was wondering what page width you guys are design to right now. All of my stuff until the last site has been based on 760px for the width. It seems like I could finally start designing for 955px, because very few people browse on a screen less than 1024 x 768. So how wide are yours? __________________ Jase

05-10-2005, 07:11	#3 (permalink)
lucidcreations Part of the 3 out of 4 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: cheshire Posts: 2,077	My last had to be 955px after a heated debate with the cliunt. I tend to use 760px and divde it into 4 x 190px columns just to start the layout. Grid systems you gotta love em. Well Josef Muller-Brockmann does / did. __________________ Jase

05-10-2005, 07:30	#5 (permalink)
lucidcreations Part of the 3 out of 4 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: cheshire Posts: 2,077	nice. __________________ Jase

05-10-2005, 13:20	#10 (permalink)
weldo now with added beard Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 5,602	The last guy in my job fucked up by not even looking at the stats - and 44% of users were getting a poor user experience, (8 x 6 res but the site was framed and built for 1024- double ouch !) I still had to argue for move back to 8 x 6 with the boss... __________________ fuck signatures

05-10-2005, 06:48	#2 (permalink)
pgo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,340	I find 750px to be good for most things. Easy to divide up if I need a sidebar. Say, sidebar 200-250, body 500-550. I'm doing one right now that's 700px wide. According to www.thecounter.com/stats/ 25% are still using 800x600...this is no time to be switching. There's always fluid width, but those often look awful and unreadable at high resolutions, which is why I ignore Mr. Nielsen in that respect.

05-10-2005, 07:26	#4 (permalink)
pgo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,340	The one I'm working on ATM is 700px wide with 100px columns.

05-10-2005, 09:43	#6 (permalink)
Transmogrify Rough Creep Arse™ Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 1,888	There's been massive debate about this on a mailing list I'm on. Some guy moaning at sites not working on his 1600x1200 screen when he claims they should be able to, if coded correctly (essentially using ems for everything, images included). I'm going to do some tests this week and see how/if it's possible. My screen res is 1920 x 1200. Means I can two browsers on the screen at once.. jazz site on the left, DT on the right. Everyone is a winner.

05-10-2005, 09:43	#7 (permalink)
Limbo Another turn. Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,980	800 x 600 screen res stats for 2005 (scroll down)

05-10-2005, 09:59	#8 (permalink)
aspiramedia Unregistered user Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 312	800 x 600 no doubt. But I'll often make it fluid.

05-10-2005, 13:40	#11 (permalink)
ZenElements Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 66	OUCH! Just saw the results of the pole, I would not have thought that there are so many people still running around on 800 by 600 resolution, ESPECIALLY on this forum, but there you are... I am personally running at 1280 by 1024 and i'm hoping to upgrade to a Dual Output Graphics Card with my two 21" monitors and run a desktop resolution of around 3200 by 1200. And yes, although this pole is posted often, it is always good to see it and find out who runs what. So, thank you lucidcreations.

05-10-2005, 13:56	#12 (permalink)
sub Shitcasket™ Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Brighton Posts: 4,834	Most of Joe public don't have 21" monitors, and PCs still only rarely ship with 1024 x 768 pixel screens. Isn't it the end user we design for in first place?

05-10-2005, 13:58	#13 (permalink)
Limbo Another turn. Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,980	zen - I think the question is what size screen we design for... not what res we use to work... unless I have the wrong end...

05-10-2005, 14:25	#14 (permalink)
pgo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 12,340	Limbo's right, but on that topic, I run my 19" monitor at 1280x1024 and my 27" Sony WEGA TV at 800x600. Can't use it for design, but it's good for watching downloaded videos and whatnot.

05-10-2005, 16:23	#15 (permalink)
Rakan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 567	same as pgo... I tend to design at 750 (sidebar maybe 200 - 250, body 500 - 550).. sometimes I'll do designs that are a little narrower (500 - 700 at times)... but I still target 800 x 600 res...

05-10-2005, 16:57	#16 (permalink)
datahound Spare Parts Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bracknell Forest Posts: 5,133	I try to design sites where the body is 780 wide (leave 20 for the scrollbar) but center that in a 100% table to fill the whitespace on bigger monitors. www.datahound.co.uk www.kergarec.com

05-10-2005, 17:49	#17 (permalink)
oli Low flying star™ Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester, England.™ Posts: 10,000	datahound doesnt work

05-10-2005, 18:14	#18 (permalink)
datahound Spare Parts Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bracknell Forest Posts: 5,133	in what way? what browser are you using? Last edited by datahound : 05-10-2005 at 18:29.

05-10-2005, 18:30	#19 (permalink)
Transmogrify Rough Creep Arse™ Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 1,888	it's working here in FF1.07

05-10-2005, 18:33	#20 (permalink)
datahound Spare Parts Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bracknell Forest Posts: 5,133	Yes I just checked that too, thought i'd fucked up. Maybe he meant aesthetically?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search