Designing for 800×600, Is it still necessary?
The number of users of 800×600 monitors is decreasing, So how important is it to stick to the 800Px limit? Here are some things to consider.
1. The actual percentage of 800×600 users on your site.
The general percentage of 800×600 users online seems to be somewhere between 18%-20% (according to W3Schools and browsersize.com) That number is decreasing fast, but if that’s the percentage of 800×600 using visitors on you site, you still need to fully support 800×600 by sticking to the 800Px limit. But not every site gets those numbers, if your site if a tech related site, the numbers will much lower. For example, this blog gets about 2.5% 800×600 users, I would also say that it’s safe to assume that a graphic designers forum will get 0%.
So the first thing you need to check it what the percentage of 800×600 for your site is. Based on that, you can decide how much 800×600 support your site will offer.
2. Will a wider site do any good.
Actually, sometimes it will just make things worse. If you’re just going to add a few pixels of width to each column, you’re probably doing more damage than good. This is because reading too long lines becomes very uncomfortable. The recommended length of a line should be from about 68 to 82 characters, which is about 450-550px, Anything longer becomes hard to read. So if you decide to make your site any wider, make sure no single column is wider than about 550px.
3. Keep the 800×600 users in mind.
Well, at least a bit. whatever content you put beyond the 800px limit, make sure it’s not too important, or that the smaller screen users know where to find it.
4. Liquid designs
Liquid designs would be ideal if the range it stretches to can be set. You don’t want a 2400×1800 user to have to make his browser window smaller just to read your text normally. the CSS min-width and max-width properties can control that, with one ‘minor’ problem: they’re not supported by IE…
andyk | June 8, 2006,
Another point to note is that not everyone runs with their browser maximised to the screen resolution. I usually have Safari resized to about 800px wide and from what I’ve seen, most Mac users tend to browse in a similar way as well, irrispective of the browser they use.
kjoker | June 8, 2006,
Nice!! Good advice. I’ll be referring to this post later on.
LobsterMan | June 9, 2006,
andyk: true, I almost never browse on full size on my iBook, but if there’s a site that’s wider, I maximize the window.
Andyk | June 9, 2006,
True, I think it’s just the Mac way of browsing. I’ll still be sticking to widths of around 750px for some time to come just because it gives you nice easy to read line lengths.
Danny | June 14, 2006,
As time goes by, I predict that 800×600 will either make something of a come-back or that something is going to be done to make the higher resolution screen sizes display larger type (thus negating some of the advantage in screen real estate use). Why? None of us are getting any younger! Seriously, think about the visual accessiblity issue of screen size in the context of an aging user population with the normal decline in eye sight performance. And, for all you young folks that think I’m talking about my 85 year old father, don’t forget that vision begins to be hampered by age somewhere in the 30 to 40 year old range.
Now, higher resolution screens that are physically larger and set to use larger font size may be a solution, but that is the exensive way to go compared to just setting the screen to 800×600. Just a thought.
-Danny.
James John Malcolm (AkaXakA) | July 2, 2006,
I have 1024×7. I browse maximised. I have the bookmarksbar or feedreaderbar(sage) open. Thus, I have a 880px viewport.
So yes, it’s a good idea to worry about 800px people, as there are still a ton of people on 1024!
Eve Lester | July 7, 2006,
Thanks for the article, great info, I hat the was pages look at 800×600, I have checked it a few times when making a site, even if it fits I am so used to having that space there.
Jake | July 27, 2006,
I know 4 people that use an 800×600 screen… I probably have around that on my 1024 though. I have a bar on top and bottom, then multiple things in my Firefox window. And I am not always maximized.
Jim | August 30, 2006,
The real cause of confusion is; a lot of web references refer that a resolution of 800×600 remains the web standard, and usage of 1024×468 may cost me losing a lot of visitors who are still tuned to that less resolution.
Plasma | October 22, 2006,
On my work i also have a 800×600 screen, only private i have 1024×768 on my notebook, so an 800×600 design is not bad…
Tottigol | October 26, 2006,
What do you think is the standard? It think a resolution of 1024 should be ok …
Mr. Marketing | November 10, 2006,
A good compromise is 850 x scrolling.
That´s the best (!)
Arzt | November 17, 2006,
The resolution should depend on the visitors of a site, my website has many homeusers with 800×600 and sometimes with 1024×768, but the Computersite of a friend has only a few 800×600 users….
Heizung Heiztechnik | November 25, 2006,
min-width and max-width does not go, therefore I am for width of 1000px
LobsterMan | November 26, 2006,
Yes, Internet Explorer lacks support of min and max width, and much more of CSS.
island | November 30, 2006,
yep, but in my analytics most of the users still have 1024 …
Heizung, Heizkessel, Öl, Gas | December 10, 2006,
i always do 800×600 because it´s easy and the best for all the browsers and inet surfers. made the experience over the last few years.
Pension | January 17, 2007,
I always use the 1024 pixel design, in my logs 95% of the users are using this width.
Pablo Villas | January 28, 2007,
I think nowadays you have to think about cellphones, pdas, high-end tv-screens and so on… and not about 800 or 1024 Pixels…
Mark | January 30, 2007,
1024 is the best, use 900px width and its almost ok with 800×600.
Feinkost | February 13, 2007,
I think the most user have a 1024 pixel design.
PK | March 7, 2007,
Thanks for very interesting article. btw. i use 1024.
Fussbondenheizungen | Solaranlagen | March 16, 2007,
to 3. | forget it… the user quantum with to less. Have a look on the stats http://www.webhits.de/deutsch/index.shtml?webstats.html
to 4. | liquid design is cool, but you can´t controle the content as much as you like.
de Mon | March 31, 2007,
i think keep your content at 800×600 pix and with the rest u can go for 1024×768 and u have it done for the most users, for all u cannot doit.
SEO Tom | April 8, 2007,
I myself prefer to work with variables. those fixed dimensions have been okay in the past but eb 2.0 already started and so we all should try to improove the web somehow and make it easier for the possible customer to find something. a customers will trust you if you site look truthworthy. just think about it…
Suchmaschinenoptimierung | April 23, 2007,
yes i think its necessary. make it for a min. of 800×600 and the rest with a option of liquid design, than you are on the right site.
Bürobedarf | June 17, 2007,
Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more. So please keep up the great work. Greetings.
tyler dewitt | September 26, 2007,
Crazy I can’t believe people are actually still using 800 by 600
Klara | November 26, 2007,
I have also a 800×600 screen, on work and at home. But i know, that most of the users have 1024. I think it could be an problem for me.
Julian Khoo | November 30, 2007,
How do you guys actually check the percentage? Through browsersize.com?
DG | July 18, 2008,
The standard for music used to vinyl, then CD’s, and now MP3. Why? Not because users asked for these things, but because technology evolved and users began expect it.
The ‘standard’ used to be 600 x 480… then ‘standard’ moved to 800 x 600. Why? Because designers decided to push the size of thier canvas. 1024 is just the way things are moving. You could still put out a song on a 45, but good luck trying explain to the masses why it doesn’t play on an iPod.