Minimum resolution of web page?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Sarah Houston, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?

    800 wide?

    IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    be able to view them properly?
     
    Sarah Houston, Jan 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sarah Houston

    ded Guest

    "Sarah Houston" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9A2BA6800A55ESntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
    > If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    > web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    > 800 wide?
    >
    > IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    > be able to view them properly?
    >


    It is a well covered topic, just google:
    "Screen resolution and web design" for plenty of info.
    The res of 800 x 600 you cite is actually the standard S-Video output
    resolution, far from ideal but it ensures everyone can see your website
    as you intend (Including those who view the web via TV/S-Video), but
    it is not the most flattering resolution.
    The safest option is to go for what the major sites resolutions are, it's
    their target "audience" you also want to hit, so go for same as MSN
    Yahoo, Google and all the other dominant megabuckz giants, and that
    resolution being 1024 X 768 resolution.
    You could google the terms:
    "Browser display statistics"
    or
    "Display Resolution trends"
    This produces plenty of info on current monitor type and web res type,
    you will find that 1024x768 is currently the dominant resolution, probably
    more than 50%, with higher res types in second position, but 800X600
    will be low on the list, only those via WebTV etc, or third World?

    There is also the users browsers + plugins to take into consideration,
    The obvious example being audio+video content etc.
    The obvious choice for video content on a web site is Adobe flash,
    (and it is a video type dispite any recent posts from a certain individual
    to the contrary).
    Once you've built your website, post the link and we will judge your
    efforts.
     
    ded, Jan 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sarah Houston

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:01 -0600, Sarah Houston
    <> wrote:

    >If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    >web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    >800 wide?
    >
    >IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    >be able to view them properly?


    Learn to code better and your site will vary properly with the screen
    size.
    Most monitors today are set at 1024x768. Go with that and if they
    don't like the site because of it, tough.
     
    richard, Jan 21, 2008
    #3
  4. Sarah Houston wrote:

    > If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    > web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    > 800 wide?
    >
    > IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    > be able to view them properly?


    Let your visitor decide.
    http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

    Your 800 pixel page would look silly on my 22" widescreen. What about
    people on mobile phones and PDAs?

    (No, I rarely have the browser maximized... it's just a point.)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Sarah Houston wrote:

    > If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    > web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    > 800 wide?
    >
    > IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    > be able to view them properly?


    Make them fluid so they'll conform to the user's viewport size.

    Viewport size? Yeah. Do you think everyone uses their browsers full
    screen, just because you apparently do? They don't.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Sarah Houston wrote:
    >
    >> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution
    >> of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>
    >> 800 wide?
    >>
    >> IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone
    >> will be able to view them properly?

    >
    > Let your visitor decide.
    > http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >
    > Your 800 pixel page would look silly on my 22" widescreen. What about
    > people on mobile phones and PDAs?
    >
    > (No, I rarely have the browser maximized... it's just a point.)


    I'm running 1920x1200. And my browsers run in the left half of that --
    960x1200.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Sarah Houston wrote:
    >>> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum
    >>> resolution of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>>
    >>> 800 wide?
    >>>
    >>> IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost
    >>> everyone will be able to view them properly?

    >>
    >> Let your visitor decide.
    >> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >>
    >> Your 800 pixel page would look silly on my 22" widescreen. What about
    >> people on mobile phones and PDAs?
    >>
    >> (No, I rarely have the browser maximized... it's just a point.)

    >
    > I'm running 1920x1200. And my browsers run in the left half of that
    > -- 960x1200.


    What size is that one? (inches) I tried higher res on mine, but most
    stuff was too small to read, so settled on 1680x1050. My browsers are
    normally in the 800-900 px range but I move 'em around frequently.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> Sarah Houston wrote:
    >>>> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution
    >>>> of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>>>
    >>>> 800 wide?
    >>>>
    >>>> IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone
    >>>> will be able to view them properly?
    >>>
    >>> Let your visitor decide.
    >>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >>>
    >>> Your 800 pixel page would look silly on my 22" widescreen. What about
    >>> people on mobile phones and PDAs?
    >>>
    >>> (No, I rarely have the browser maximized... it's just a point.)

    >>
    >> I'm running 1920x1200. And my browsers run in the left half of that --
    >> 960x1200.

    >
    > What size is that one? (inches) I tried higher res on mine, but most
    > stuff was too small to read, so settled on 1680x1050. My browsers are
    > normally in the 800-900 px range but I move 'em around frequently.


    24" Samsung 245BW

    All of my browsers live (automatically open there) in the left half, as
    does my mail program; I move between them from the task bar. Similarly,
    the right half holds my news clients and my FTP application. This is for
    my Online desktop; I'm set up with seven other desktops for other
    categories of stuff: Graphics, File Management, Console, etc.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 21, 2008
    #8
  9. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> What size is that one? (inches) I tried higher res on mine, but
    >> most stuff was too small to read, so settled on 1680x1050. My
    >> browsers are normally in the 800-900 px range but I move 'em around
    >> frequently.

    >
    > 24" Samsung 245BW


    Ah. Mine is a 226BW.

    > All of my browsers live (automatically open there) in the left half,
    > as does my mail program; I move between them from the task bar.
    > Similarly, the right half holds my news clients and my FTP
    > application. This is for my Online desktop; I'm set up with seven
    > other desktops for other categories of stuff: Graphics, File
    > Management, Console, etc.


    <lol> I don't do enough stuff at one time to warrant seven desktops. Two
    is quite sufficient.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #9
  10. Sarah Houston

    chuckcar Guest

    Sarah Houston <> wrote in
    news:Xns9A2BA6800A55ESntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142:

    > If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution
    > of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    > 800 wide?
    >
    > IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone
    > will be able to view them properly?
    >


    640x480 is the minimum resolution for MS Windows back to 9x. My Father
    (91) uses that due to his eyesight and he has XP.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jan 21, 2008
    #10
  11. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> What size is that one? (inches) I tried higher res on mine, but most
    >>> stuff was too small to read, so settled on 1680x1050. My browsers are
    >>> normally in the 800-900 px range but I move 'em around frequently.

    >>
    >> 24" Samsung 245BW

    >
    > Ah. Mine is a 226BW.


    It's my first Samsung monitor. How d'ya like yours?

    >> All of my browsers live (automatically open there) in the left half, as
    >> does my mail program; I move between them from the task bar. Similarly,
    >> the right half holds my news clients and my FTP application. This is
    >> for my Online desktop; I'm set up with seven other desktops for other
    >> categories of stuff: Graphics, File Management, Console, etc.

    >
    > <lol> I don't do enough stuff at one time to warrant seven desktops. Two
    > is quite sufficient.


    Eight. That was seven besides Online. ;)

    It's nice to be able to set them up the way I want them, window-wise, and
    have them stay that way when I go off to do something else of a
    different nature and on a different desktop and then come back to them and
    have them just like I left them.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 21, 2008
    #11
  12. "Sarah Houston" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9A2BA6800A55ESntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
    > If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    > web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    > 800 wide?
    >
    > IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    > be able to view them properly?
    >


    Major sites have been moving to fit 1024 wide, after being at 800 for a few
    years. It is time to make your sites fit a 1024 wide screen now.

    It is also important to reduce the width of the webpages by around 25 pixels
    to cater for "browser chrome", like scroll bars, etc.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Jan 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>> 24" Samsung 245BW

    >>
    >> Ah. Mine is a 226BW.

    >
    > It's my first Samsung monitor. How d'ya like yours?


    This one is my second. I have a 17" which is now on the spouse's
    computer. I like them fine. I selected this 226BW because it has the
    narrowest plastic around the working part of the screen. It was also
    sharper than anything else in its price range.

    ....
    >> <lol> I don't do enough stuff at one time to warrant seven desktops.
    >> Two is quite sufficient.

    >
    > Eight. That was seven besides Online. ;)
    >
    > It's nice to be able to set them up the way I want them, window-wise,
    > and have them stay that way when I go off to do something else of a
    > different nature and on a different desktop and then come back to
    > them and have them just like I left them.


    'Tis true...

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Sarah Houston

    why? Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:01 -0600, Sarah Houston wrote:

    >If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    >web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >
    >800 wide?


    Wrong idea, it should flow although many don't, generally a good design
    will take care of this.

    WAP phones, handhelds, you don't know who is going to view the page with
    what.

    >IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost everyone will
    >be able to view them properly?


    Pages scroll vertically, I prefer to deal with horizontal myself.

    Me
     
    why?, Jan 21, 2008
    #14
  15. "why?" <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum resolution of
    >>web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>
    >>800 wide?

    >
    > Wrong idea, it should flow although many don't, generally a good design
    > will take care of this.
    >


    Bollocks. Not many professionally designed sites use liquid layouts. Most
    use CSS with absolute positioning these days.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Jan 21, 2008
    #15
  16. Synapse Syndrome wrote:

    > "why?" wrote:
    >> [Sarah Houston wrote:]
    >>> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum
    >>> resolution of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>>
    >>> 800 wide?

    >>
    >> Wrong idea, it should flow although many don't, generally a good
    >> design will take care of this.

    >
    > Bollocks. Not many professionally designed sites use liquid layouts.


    ...mostly because their 'deeziners' have minimal skills, other than
    firing up Dreamweaver and selecting some restricting template.

    > Most use CSS with absolute positioning these days.


    Fault of the template, also built by people with no imagination, and who
    know little about accessibility and usability. Post the question in
    alt.html and see what kind of answers y'all get.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #16
  17. Sarah Houston

    Guest

    chuckcar <> wrote:

    >640x480 is the minimum resolution for MS Windows back to 9x.


    All video cards default to this setting, it's VGA.

    >My Father
    >(91) uses that due to his eyesight and he has XP.


    I used 800 X 600 until just last month, now 1680X1050; quite a jump
    but the resolution the LCD likes. I have like 14pt fonts in Agent and
    I'm in front of it :)


    --

    http://images.usefulzero.com/
     
    , Jan 21, 2008
    #17
  18. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:ud5lj.154335$...
    >>>> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum
    >>>> resolution of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>>>
    >>>> 800 wide?
    >>>
    >>> Wrong idea, it should flow although many don't, generally a good
    >>> design will take care of this.

    >>
    >> Bollocks. Not many professionally designed sites use liquid layouts.

    >
    > ..mostly because their 'deeziners' have minimal skills, other than
    > firing up Dreamweaver and selecting some restricting template.


    Well , they actually have designers as well as developers at web design
    firms. I'm not talkign about people's homepages, but professionally
    designed pages made from scratch. Why talk about templates?

    Do you really think that the people at Amazon or eBay do not have the
    resources to pay for coders? The fact is that liquid layouts are just not
    appropriate for a lot of sites. It can become a confusing mess and there is
    little control. Liquid layouts are not hard to make, they are just only
    appropriate in relatively simply laid out sites.

    For example, The Guardian site is a website that is used as an example of
    good clear design in the UK. It could never work with a liquid layout, and
    of course they could afford the best developers and designers.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/

    >> Most use CSS with absolute positioning these days.

    >
    > Fault of the template, also built by people with no imagination, and who
    > know little about accessibility and usability. Post the question in
    > alt.html and see what kind of answers y'all get.


    Who's interested in the ugly little homepages that they are concerned with.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Jan 21, 2008
    #18
  19. Synapse Syndrome wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
    >>> Bollocks. Not many professionally designed sites use liquid
    >>> layouts.

    >>
    >> ..mostly because their 'deeziners' have minimal skills, other than
    >> firing up Dreamweaver and selecting some restricting template.

    >
    > Well , they actually have designers as well as developers at web
    > design firms. I'm not talkign about people's homepages, but
    > professionally designed pages made from scratch. Why talk about
    > templates?


    Because a lot of developer/designers use them. Naturally, there are
    others who do not, but it is part of the problem.

    > Do you really think that the people at Amazon or eBay do not have the
    > resources to pay for coders? The fact is that liquid layouts are
    > just not appropriate for a lot of sites.


    ...except those two are liquid layouts. <g>

    > It can become a confusing mess and there is little control. Liquid
    > layouts are not hard to make, they are just only appropriate in
    > relatively simply laid out sites.


    Neither amazon nor ebay would be considered 'simple' sites.

    > For example, The Guardian site is a website that is used as an
    > example of good clear design in the UK. It could never work with a
    > liquid layout, and of course they could afford the best developers
    > and designers.


    The Guardian is a fixed-width site, but the Amazon and eBay sites you
    mention seem to expand the content to the full size of my browser
    window, even to 1680 px. So your examples are .. um .. mixed.

    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/
    >
    >>> Most use CSS with absolute positioning these days.

    >>
    >> Fault of the template, also built by people with no imagination, and
    >> who know little about accessibility and usability. Post the question
    >> in alt.html and see what kind of answers y'all get.

    >
    > Who's interested in the ugly little homepages that they are concerned
    > with.


    Heh. The ugly little authors?

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2008
    #19
  20. "ded" <> wrote :

    >
    > "Sarah Houston" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9A2BA6800A55ESntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
    >> If I'm designing my own basic web pages, what's the minimum
    >> resolution of web page viewers out there, that I should conform to?
    >>
    >> 800 wide?
    >>
    >> IOW,how wide can I design my web pages, and know that almost
    >> everyone will be able to view them properly?
    >>

    >
    > It is a well covered topic, just google:
    > "Screen resolution and web design" for plenty of info.
    > The res of 800 x 600 you cite is actually the standard S-Video output
    > resolution, far from ideal but it ensures everyone can see your
    > website as you intend (Including those who view the web via
    > TV/S-Video), but it is not the most flattering resolution.
    > The safest option is to go for what the major sites resolutions are,
    > it's their target "audience" you also want to hit, so go for same as
    > MSN Yahoo, Google and all the other dominant megabuckz giants, and
    > that resolution being 1024 X 768 resolution.


    Thank you! :)
     
    Sarah Houston, Jan 21, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harry the Horse

    Web page has altered my home page in IE 5.5

    Harry the Horse, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    580
    sethra
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Stickems

    What's the optimum resolution for a web page?

    Stickems, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    726
  3. Route 9w
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    716
  4. Phil
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,189
    Wyatt M. Portendt
    Mar 4, 2004
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    531
Loading...

Share This Page