[mathias]

So we've established that 800 res users are in the minority now, by far (less than 10%). 1024 is now most prevelant. View the first few comments to this little blog entry, they contain user's res stats from a few diff sources, set up in pretty little tables: {Resolution} I use a dual 19" display, both at 1600, btw. But, I'm not asking for yet another poll, seen enough already.

-No, what I'm really after is: how much viewable are of the browser is standardly now safe to use? You guys that create sites professionally (lucky bastards!), what do you think?

-Here's what I came up with:



--According to my pic there, a centered flash movie with the dimension: 1000 X 610 is probably gonna be just right, and aceptable by today's means.

_____________________________________________

[pgo]

For fixed with, around 750px - 800x600 still makes up a significant portion of the population. 17% according to thecounter.com, 20% according to w3schools.com.

Height...I just try to keep the most important stuff above the fold.

--According to my pic there, a centered flash movie with the dimension: 1000 X 610 is probably gonna be just right, and aceptable by today's means.

If you create something 1000 pixels wide, it'll cause horizontal scrolling on probably 60-70% of browsers.

Most people are using 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

[mathias]

-What's the reason so many people still use 800? Do their machines ship using it? I helped set up someone's new Dell some months ago, and it was 1024 by default.

If you create something 1000 pixels wide, it'll cause horizontal scrolling on probably 60-70% of browsers.

-How does using a 1000px fixed width create horiz scrolling for 60-70% of users, when horiz scrolling only results when the width exceeds the browser space and only 17% of users are 800, not 70%? Ppl browsing windowed, too bad, you should be use it.

-Well, all this research is for my own website's layout (will only be a flash movie). I just need to reach a conclusion so I can get beyond this issue and move one. Hell, I might even link my site once done, can't forget what happened last time, though.

[weldo]

Originally Posted by mathias

So we've established that 800 res users are in the minority now, by far (less than 10%).

They still make up around 20% of our users - so I still bear that in mind with our website and design for 8x6.

If you're going to use general stats picked up from 3rd party sites then there's always going to be some guesswork - and the need to make judgement calls without any specific facts at your fingertips... get your own stats tool on your own site and use that as GOSPEL for that site - thats the only way to be 100% sure you're accomodating YOUR users.

the sats will also probably give you available screensize info, which can vary from person to person according to toolbars installed etc .. where do you get your '3 toolbar average' from ??

If its Flash just set it to 100% - that'll work won't it ?

[lukasarts]

so I still bear that in mind with our website and design for 8x6.

Ditto. Sideways scrolling is one of the most annoying things a user has to do. Best to serve the majority, even if you have a 16x12 50" HDplasmamegascreen to test the site on. My mum still uses a 15" goldfishbowl at 8x6, for example.

[pgo]

Originally Posted by mathias

-How does using a 1000px fixed width create horiz scrolling for 60-70% of users, when horiz scrolling only results when the width exceeds the browser space and only 17% of users are 800, not 70%? Ppl browsing windowed, too bad, you should be use it.

1024 - 1000 = 24 pixels. That's not much buffer room.

A safe bet is around 60% for users at 1024 - in general. So, maximized, Firefox at least would have 1000 pixels of space. What happens if they don't maximize their browser?

It's just too risky. Either design fixed width for 800x600 (or your audience, if your audience uses higher resolutions) or fluid width.

[mathias]

Originally Posted by weldo

If its Flash just set it to 100% - that'll work won't it ?

Well, It'll stretch my raster if enlarged beyond it's original size, and it'll render small text illegible if shrunk. So, probably not. An all vector flash would usually not be damaged, though.

It's just so tempting to say, 'aw, screw it!' when I see other great sites breaking these common rules (keeping widths compatible for people with res's that suck), such as Richard Devine (now I don't know what this designer was thinkin', even at 1600, I still have about 20px of horix scrolling) and Iso50. But, one of the reasons I enrolled on this site was to meet ppl that knew what they were talking about, so I'll listen.

What I think I've decided to do is create my site compatible for users at 800, by making the flash (my site will be a single flash movie aligned to top of browser and centered) small enough to not cause horiz scrolling at 1024, yet put all the nav and necessary content in an 800 user's browser space, so that when maximized, they can see all necessary content right off the bat, and only have to horiz scroll to see extra background anim/graphics.

Originally Posted by pgo

What happens if they don't maximize their browser?

Ppl that routinely surf windowed should be use to it, right? If that person isn't willing to maximize his/her browser when they see that my site's width exceeds what their browser currently sees, and isn't willing to maximize, then I don't have much sympathy for that person. Can't win all the time. Keep in mind, this is a site displaying graphic design work meant to make an impact on viewers, I don't wanna go too run-of-the-mill on it.
What do you think?

[top_buzz]

You could do full browser flash and position stuff to fit in all resolutions fine.

http://www.actionscript.com/Article/...1/Default.aspx

http://www.tutorio.com/tutorial/liquid-flash-layout

[mathias]

Excellent, two more links fav'ed. Thank you, top.

[pgo]

If you're going Flash, listen to top_buzz. His Flash sites are some of the few that don't annoy the hell out of me. Except for the music.

Just don't, for the love of god, make sites like that first link that you posted. That site is a prime example of the worst kind of "design".

[mathias]

You gotta realize (and I'm sure it's painfully clear to you...) that we're worlds apart, as far as knowledge and experience go. But, I'm learning quickly.

Will I ever live the 'first link' down, what's it going to take?

Btw, top_buzz's flash designs really kick butt, I love his work; fav'ed him so I can keep an eye on him, too.