[oli]

Im rolling out 900's these days.

[Maerk]

Die 800 die

[digitaloctane]

Originally Posted by pgo

Then you hit the catch 22. Most people who are using 8x6 are doing so because their eyes are bad due to age. And most of them won't know how to increase font sizes.

Thats true,
Its always gonna come down to target audience.

[shakey]

Originally Posted by freelancr

If it cannot be made fluid, I am more concerned about making it look better on 1024 than 800.

Most of my fluid sites though, I still try to make them look good for 800x600 too.

same ere

[timotool]

Depends on your target market.
Most of my clients' websites target rich people, so we design for 1024.
My personal websites target common folks. People with 800 do visit my website AND become my clients.

It depends.

[brooks]

800 because like pgo, tall and skinny = nice! I'm going to start designing fluid, with a min-width of about 750 and a max of about 1000 though .

[Limbo]

Lot's more at 1028px than I imagined. good.

[emil]

mostly 800 for me. for two reasons:
- content quanity does not justify larger sizes
- people don't always maximize their window

[Spooky]

I might just start designing at something like 957, just to be awkward.

[Dusteh]

1024 - although its worth thinking about the growing 2nd (3rd?) world countries using obsolete computers by our standards. By not designing for 800x600 have we inadvertantly isolated half of our audience in Nigeria?

Not to mention the growing use of handheld readers, like the new iphone - its scroll and zoom technology may be great, but I bet its still easier to look at sites designed for 800x600.

[Limbo]

Originally Posted by Spooky

I might just start designing at something like 957, just to be awkward.

Actually thats only 3px of my max width for 1024. So not a bad place to start - got to leave a little room for air.

[bluesage]

Originally Posted by Dusteh

1024 - although its worth thinking about the growing 2nd (3rd?) world countries using obsolete computers by our standards. By not designing for 800x600 have we inadvertantly isolated half of our audience in Nigeria?

Not to mention the growing use of handheld readers, like the new iphone - its scroll and zoom technology may be great, but I bet its still easier to look at sites designed for 800x600.

I agree, some good points there

on another note, a bit out of context here, but some of you say 1024, designing with min-width, max-width, what do you do for IE 6.0 below browsers ? IE 7 supports a lot of the CSS that Firefox does not I think, but older browsers dont.

[pgo]

Originally Posted by bluesage

IE 7 supports a lot of the CSS that Firefox does not

No, IE 7 still has the lowest CSS compliance of the major browsers.

[bluesage]

hehe, totally right, I made a typo, the "not" isnt supposed to be there

[skyrocket]

the trend is with wider high resolution monitors so 1024x768 is now the new black. the way i see it 800x600 still has enough numbers to build in some flexibility. maybe it's wise to have a hybrid 780 min to 950 max width with the main content kept within the 780 and non mission-critical stuff eg: nav, logo kept from going outside the fold. the big question is the take up of smaller devices in the near future such as PDAs and the iPod phone and how that will influence page layout & design...

[mattp]

But IE (6?) doesn't support min-width/max-width, does it?

[Dusteh]

It supports max but not min if I remember correctly. Never been a fan of liquid sites myself.

[skyrocket]

Originally Posted by mattp

But IE (6?) doesn't support min-width/max-width, does it?

yes true - sorry wasn't clear. we didn't use min-width/max-width. the solution we're using is the header & footer are fluid - they fill 100% of the screen but stuff floats centre with margin: auto so folks on 1024x768 get to see it all. folks on 800x600 miss bits of the right side but nothing mission critical. the container also floats using margin: auto but has a fixed width narrower than the header/footer so that re-sizes nicely for the 800x600 crowd so it's kind of a hybrid fluid/fixed.

[LadynRed]

Mine are mostly fixed-width for 800x600. Because most of the sites I build are for medical practices, they don't have a ton of content that would look decent on a 1024 layout, and I do have to consider that older people will be visiting or people who may not have the latest and greatest killer machine.

I have 1 fluid site that is somewhat stretchy, but they have a LOT of content and I've got the max width set at 1000px so that I don't have loooooooooooonngg stretched out sentences. I've seen liquid sites that suffer from that problem, super long sentences and it's very bad for readability.

Until my web logs show me that almost no one is using 8x6, I'm not going to design strictly for anything wider.

[dcypher.co.uk]

800x600