Question
What is the screen size for a standard site these days?
I'm looking * a "how to" book from '99 and it says design for a 14" screen.
Anybody know what it is for '04?
Answer
This could be debated high and low... but here are some thoughts...
Best Practices
The best practice for Web sites says page layout should be set as screen percentages rather than fixed pixels. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, implementing page layout as screen percentages should be the target for a redesign.
Here's an executive summary from Forrester:
Most Web sites are optimized for 800 x 600 screen resolution, but most site visitors have their monitors set for 1024 x 768 or higher. Managers can confirm this fundamental shift by using the current version of any popular measurement tool and then adjusting the typography and page layouts of their sites to optimize around the appropriate screen resolution. (I can't post the article because of it's copyright, article itself sells for like $100.00)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>About Forrester
Forrester is an independent technology research company that provides pragmatic and forward-thinking advice about technology's impact on business. Business, marketing, and IT professionals worldwide collaborate with Forrester to align their technology investments with their business goals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim's summary: so.. 1024 x 768 would be the design target, and percentages rather then hard coded widths would be the 'best pactice'.
-Jim
Answer
This article talks about using tables and percentages:
http://www.cozyfrog.com/guides/desig...ScreenSize.asp
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>According to TheCounter.com, the majority of today’s web surfers are looking at your pages through a monitor with an 800x600 screen resolution. The breakdown looks a little something like this:
44% * 800x600
42% * 1024x768
4% * 1280x1024
3% * 1152x864
2% * 640x480
1% * Unknown <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another good article about using percentages:
http://www.dreamink.com/design6.shtml
There are lots of people who still use a 15" monitor with 800x600 screen resolution. Most laptops have a 14" or 15" screen and a 15" is still the standard in many BASIC computer packages. I don't think it's a good idea to set up a page that causes scrolling for those using 800x600 resolution.
Blanche
Answer
While I don't disagree with that article, I do find it a bit simplistic and misleading.
Although I believe you should allow for 800x600 resolution, your design should be for1024x768. BUT...you shouldn't really design for a specific size at all. Bad idea. Bad. More about that a bit later.....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are lots of people who still use a 15" monitor with 800x600 screen resolution. Most laptops have a 14" or 15" screen and a 15" is still the standard in many BASIC computer packages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While it IS true that most people have 15" monitors (especially with the new Flat Panels), it's NOT true that a 15" monitor = 800x600 resolution. In reality, resolution has nothing to do with monitor size and everything to do with which video adapter (or card) is running your monitor. For example, a 15" Flat Panel monitor with an average video adapter can be set at 800x600, 1024x768, or 1280x1024. IME, the majority of people choose 1024x768. With the abundance of video adapters on the market, "designing for a 14-inch screen" or a 15-inch, or a 17-inch just isn't a valid argument anymore.
Screen size also depends, more than you would think, on your target audience. For instance if your market is the under-21 crowd, you will never capture their attention with a web site designed for a 800x600 screen. Nope. But if your audience is the over 50 crowd, you can bet the vast majority will be running the 800x600 size.
Back to NOT designing for resolution.....
As Jim said, you should ALWAYS design using percentages. That allows the browser to adjust according to the user's resolution.
Plus....it allows adjustments for the user's specified font.
Plus....it allows adjustments for the user's text size.
I do make one concession for 800x600 resolution. That's image size. I never size an image larger than 350 pixels wide. Besides the resolution issue, it also caters to people who are still on dial-up. Less load time.
If it's absolutely necessary to have a bigger image, I link to it.
Nothing is uglier than to have a page "hard-coded" for a larger resolution on a monitor running 1024 or 1280. It leaves 2-3 inches of bare space. Besides ugly, it's a waste of prime real estate. Since 60% of users never scroll, you want to use every bit of what the user does see.
My personal philosopy is:
(1) percentages whenever possible
(2) center all tables on the page
(3) use cascading style sheets (which is a whole other can of worms)
(4) use whitespace, but don't waste it
Answer
Here's my stats from just one site:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1024 x 768 = 2,356 45%
800 x 600 = 2,209 42%
1280 x 1024 = 203 4%
1152 x 864 = 116 2%
640 x 480 = 116 2%
560 x 420 = 34 1%
1400 x 1500 = 31 1%
...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Answer
This is an endless debate.
Fixed width vs fluid designs.
My site is designed to look reasonably good at 640x480 and it's a fixed width design.
I have no plans to change that anytime soon, even though I allowed for moving to an 800x600 format when I put the current design online a year ago.
Why?
A big percentage of my target audience are using older computers with smaller screens. My site works well on those monitors.
Folks with newer systems might well be running with the favorites bar open on the right side of the screen. Even with that and set at 800x600 they can view my pages without a side scroll most of the time.
At 1024 you get some open space on each side of my pages but not enough to move to a fluid design over.
Visitors with large monitors and high resoultion settings often have more than one window open at a time on the screen.
Running at 1200 or higher, you can have my pages open and still have plenty of room for another window beside mine.
And my pages look the same on each of the above situations, thus giving a more consistent appearance.
In the end though, it all depends on your target marget.
If your site targets computers, computer games, software etc a fluid design might well be the way to go.
I wouldn't even think of putting an antiques oriented site online with a fluid design.
Nor would I do a fluid design for most subjects.
And I wouldn't design for more than 800x600 period.
But then I strive to be 3 - 4 years behind the curve on this stuff. And yes, I'm being serious with that statement.