Screen resolution.

[J@ck]

Wotcha folks.

Where do you lot stand on the whole screen resolution thing?

Do you design for 640x480, 800x600, etc.

I ask as my organisation (we get 800,000+ unique hits a month) is redesigning its site for 800x600, yet large corporations still design for 640x480, the BBC for one!

I used tables on my own site, using percentages to stretch the screen to the screen width.

Out of interest, what do you folks consider acceptable ?

Jack.

[DiscoStu]

Tricky one. I go for 800x600, but design mainly for PC's. What with these damn tv internet browsers and stupid resolutions of 512x480(?) it's just more headaches for us web-heads?!?!

:bandit: :bandit: :bandit: :bandit:

[cyKey]

i design for 800x600, as the ok res to browse, 640x480 is a possible res to browse my sites, as in its still usable. 1024x768 is the best res to browse. I'd say not to forget thos 640x480 users, if you know what your userbase is then it shouldn't be a problem. The web is about gettin information across, no matter the platform.

[alpha]

I always design so that it'll stretch, and work in anything from 640x480 upwards (and usually a bit below).

Massive spaces to the sides of websites (like the BBC site) looks really silly IMO, and a lot of people still browse in 640x480...

[mr_grumpy_man]

Personally I design for 1024*768, but for work I do it at 640*480. I do personal sites at 1024*768 not through any particular design preference but because it's convenient for me that way, changing resolution and stuff screws up my desktop and has killed of games before now :(

But the stuff I get paid for, I do at 640*480. Anyways, I asked a similar question a while ago:

http://faster.wireplay.net/showthread.php?threadid=179323

[7ths0n]

Think about the target audience... if you're designing a website for gamers then most likely you'll be to get away with designing with a high resolution in mind because the vast majority of gamers will have top end equipment and they'll be bragging that they're resolution is far higher than their friends or whatever. If on the other hand you're designing a site for say, bored sales people who are going to go to your site during work... then 640 x 480 is your best shot.

For the record i use 1024 x 768 at work, would go higher but I'm waiting to have a bigger monitor delivered first and i use 1600 x 1200 at home.. personally i design with 800 x 600 in mind... failing that i try to make it strech out, not that hard to fiddle.

^7th^

[McChaff]

I managed to make the new layout for my site LifeForce UK (I haven't uploaded it yet) work for 800x600 and 1024x768 users and still use frames without percentages. It is possible you know. I have never made a site for 640x480 users and I doubt I ever will.

If everyone got decent moniters, and used 1024x768, everything would be sorted!

[alpha]

<hypothetical>

I'm a poor student. My only 'net access comes in the form of my aging laptop which can't go higher than 640x480. Are you going to pay for me to buy a new computer so I can view your site?

</hypothetical>

If you cater for 640x480 and above, you're allowing for 99%+ of your audience (although this is changing now with TV's with net access).

[Waldo]

I used to always do (mainly personal) sites for 800x600 and above. However, I am currently doing a site which will fit in the horizontal screen at 640x480 - it doesn't look that good in this res tho. However, when my last monitor broke down, I was left using a 12 year old Goldstar monitor which I nicked from an office that was closing down. I was left in 640x480 for a week, while waiting for my new monitor... it was the worst time of my life! Most pages, it seems, don't seem to take notice of this resolution.
However, all this WebTV nonsense (a terrible, terrible idea) confuses me. I mean, how far do you sit from your Monitor? About 2 feet away? How far do you sit from your telly? Probably about 6 feet. That means this text would be unreadable... whoever thought of the whole webTV thing needs a good kicking.