I have been designing my site for the 800x600 res for a long time.
This means that I am restricted to a dimension of around 750-760 in
width, since I'd like people who have a 800x600 laptop, let's say, to
be able to fit the content in without having to scroll horizontally. I
have seen quite a number of sites nowadays which has a "wider span".
So I am wondering ...

For you more experienced designers: what is the common dimension I can
use today which will accommodate most viewers? Are there any where I
can find up-tp-date stats on what % of viewers use which resolution
monitor settings etc.?

Thanks for any help.
Petre

On 17 Jul 2003 22:36:08 -0700, phuile@yahoo.ca (Petre Huile) wrote:
[color=blue]
>I have been designing my site for the 800x600 res for a long time.
>This means that I am restricted to a dimension of around 750-760 in
>width, since I'd like people who have a 800x600 laptop, let's say, to
>be able to fit the content in without having to scroll horizontally. I
>have seen quite a number of sites nowadays which has a "wider span".
>So I am wondering ...
>
>For you more experienced designers: what is the common dimension I can
>use today which will accommodate most viewers?[/color]

In general you cannot know, and should not care. See
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmat...lexdesign.html for why.

Only if images make up an important part of the site content (as opposed
to the site presentation/decoration) do you need to make this sort of
decision. And even here there are ways around it:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html
[color=blue]
>Are there any where I
>can find up-tp-date stats on what % of viewers use which resolution
>monitor settings etc.?[/color]

No reliable ones, no. Apart from anything else, the ones available
generally report screen size and not window size. I have a 1024x768
screen, but my window width is normally around 700 pixels.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

phuile@yahoo.ca (Petre Huile) writes:[color=blue]
> I have been designing my site for the 800x600 res for a long time.
> This means that I am restricted to a dimension of around 750-760 in
> width, since I'd like people who have a 800x600 laptop, let's say, to
> be able to fit the content in without having to scroll horizontally. I
> have seen quite a number of sites nowadays which has a "wider span".
> So I am wondering ...
>
> For you more experienced designers: what is the common dimension I can
> use today which will accommodate most viewers? Are there any where I
> can find up-tp-date stats on what % of viewers use which resolution
> monitor settings etc.?[/color]

You're asking the wrong question. For the record, the browsers I'm
commonly using are running at display resolutions of either 1024x768,
800x600 or 80x25 (characters, not pixels, this last one).

However, very few of them are running in a maximised window. The
browser I have open at the moment is running at 912x696. Feel free to
design for that if you like, but the next time I open it I'll probably
decide that 843x580 fits in better with the rest of my windows.

You can't get *reliable* stats on what % of viewers use what
resolution, even if having these stats would help, which it doesn't.

Using CSS (it's in old HTML as well, but it's not quite as flexible
there) you can suggest layouts based on the width of the browser window. So:
#content { /* for example */
width: 80%;
}
will make your content area take up 80% of the width, and you can put
something else in the other 20%. Assuming appropriately written HTML,
naturally.

--
Chris

On Fri, Jul 17, Petre Huile inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> I have been designing my site for the 800x600 res for a long time.[/color]

Strange idea. I've been aiming for flexibility.
[color=blue]
> For you more experienced designers:[/color]

I make web pages. I'm not a "designer".
[color=blue]
> what is the common dimension I can
> use today which will accommodate most viewers?[/color]

Flexibility accommodates all viewers - why would you decide to
deliberately exclude anyone?

In article <5ada05a7.0307172136.2833a781@posting.google.com > in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Petre Huile <phuile@yahoo.ca>
wrote:[color=blue]
>I have been designing my site for the 800x600 res for a long time.
>This means that I am restricted to a dimension of around 750-760 in
>width, since I'd like people who have a 800x600 laptop, let's say, to
>be able to fit the content in without having to scroll horizontally.[/color]

Your intent is good, but your execution has problems.

First, WebTV users (and there are millions of them, last I heard)
are restricted to 544 pixels
<http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/design.html#screen-size>.

But what about Palm Pilots and such? What about devices neither of
us knows about, or devices just now being created?

Really what you want to do is use what we call "liquid" design, i.e.
design that does not rely on any fixed screen dimensions, does not
set font sizes, etc.

A good test for "is my design liquid?" is this. DON'T run your
browser full screen (many people don't). Now try resizing the
window. Make it taller than it is wide, for instance. Try various
sizes and shapes. If the content reflows, your design is good;
otherwise it's bad.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/