What should be the resolution of my website?

It doesn't matter if you do all the error checking in the world, or if you have the most beautiful graphics, if your site or application design isn't usable, it's not going to do well. Get input and advice on usability and user interface issues here.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
Sequalit
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Texas

What should be the resolution of my website?

Post by Sequalit »

Hello... I'm having difficulties in designing my website

I want to make it in 560 width for the fact that there are alot of users out there at 800x600.
But 560 isnt wide enough to add two columns of navigation on the site(like left side for nav right side for news/stats)
I would need to increase my width to 900... then my site would only support people who have 1280x1024..
Or would it be better to go with like, say 700?
or should i just force my site to be designed around 560?
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

It all depends on your goals.

Current stats put 800x600 at around 25% of users.

Of course, if your site actually gets 90%, then you need to focus on that segment more.

Regardless, there are many VERY good layouts that can be acheived even at a width of 560. I'd suggest putting up a mock of the layout, and asking for suggestions. The forum dwellers here seem to have a very good eye for layout, design, and improvements.
User avatar
shoebappa
Forum Contributor
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:14 pm
Location: Norfolk, VA

Post by shoebappa »

I usually go for around 760. Not sure where you got the 560 number, sounds more like trying to fit on 640x480 (which those w3 stats say 0% use anymore, finally!). 760 will fit on 800x600 maximized without causing a horizontal scrollbar, and 1024x768 with a favorites bar on the left (depending on how wide they have it). You can also fit two columns of navigation in there pretty well.

I'd definately say the max you could design for is 1024, not 1280... I notice recently sites like Cnet and ESPN have pushed to a 1024 layout but they still only use the 800x600 area for the content and put some filler ads and crap out in 1024 land.
Sequalit
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Sequalit »

okay hehe... for some reason i thought the second number was width pfft... okay well I will go width of 900... or 1000?
foobar
Forum Regular
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:08 am

Post by foobar »

Forget about fixed widths, go for a liquid layout. And make font sizes relative and scalable (eg: 1.2em). This'll allow your website to be accessible to almost anybody. :)
Sequalit
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Sequalit »

so how do you go about making a liquid layout? that seems a bit confusing to me... like 100% width on tables or soemthing?
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

Sequalit wrote:so how do you go about making a liquid layout? that seems a bit confusing to me... like 100% width on tables or soemthing?
Percentage width floating divs..
User avatar
phpdevuk
Forum Contributor
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:31 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by phpdevuk »

if you want to see what can be done with css layout and design check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ and also http://www.contentwithstyle.co.uk/Artic ... -framework both very good sites.
Ree
Forum Regular
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:43 am
Location: LT

Post by Ree »

Roja wrote:Current stats put 800x600 at around 25% of users.
Would have never thought there's so many. I would've said no more than 15%.
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

shoebappa wrote:I usually go for around 760. Not sure where you got the 560 number.....
760 is seriously pushing the limits for 800x600 screens. Take into account window borders, scrollbars (paddng/margins if you set them).

Besides that, if you have "Favourites" or "Bookmarks" open in your browser you essentially lose windows space.

IMO, 700 is a good number to go for if you really want fixed width layouts that work at 800x600.

I generally prefer fluid layouts however -- everything fits to fill the screen.

My latest layout uses a 720 pixel fixed-width layout, which leaves just enough room for background decoration without bookmarks/favourites @ 800x600 ;)

Note: 560px wide will leave a heap of blank space @ 1280x1024 so make sure you have something to please the eye (that's not distracting from the content) in the background.
Sequalit
Forum Commoner
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Sequalit »

phpdevuk wrote:if you want to see what can be done with css layout and design check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ and also http://www.contentwithstyle.co.uk/Artic ... -framework both very good sites.
alright thankx. ill check into CSS and Liquid layouts, thanks for the info guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Luke
The Ninja Space Mod
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Paradise, CA

Post by Luke »

I always go 775 on width. 800 X 600 comes out great, but to make sure everything is on the screen and no horizontal scrolling.. always give yourself about 25 pixels of space. I don't think anybody should have to cater to anything less than 800 X 600. Those people who have resolution smaller than that need encouragement to upgrade and stop holding back technology... lol.
User avatar
onion2k
Jedi Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:03 pm
Location: usrlab.com

Post by onion2k »

I noticed today that Amazon.com's index page no longer fits in 800x600 .. interesting. Neither does play.com.
Post Reply