Have the standards changed?
- 23rd September 2005 | permanent link
- comments (8)
800 x 600
It was said that 800 x 600 pixles rule is written in stone. But is it? The world around web developers is changing, but we still keep the same 'standard'. The world has long ago embraced 1024 x 768, and yet we still make everything for the old 800px width. Are we rigid? Stubborn? Or do we just have to make websites for those folks with 800px widths? The rule is to let everybody in so they can see the content, but does it really need to be the guy with the smallest width that makes the rule? I mean get serious, its 2005 (that's 2-0-0-5, as in the new millenium). If your monitor uses 800 x 600 as the optimal resolution, make a mental note - invest in a new one. I happen to like the way I look without glasses, I hope you do too.
Should these visitors even be regarded as 'regular' visitors, or should we just exclude them from the css media named screen? OK, I know I'm exaggerating a bit (and it would be kinda hard to do this), but hey, some of the more capable handhelds already have a resolution close to that, so I guess I'm not so wrong.
It's a Mac thing
OK, this I can take into consideration. Folks on Macs tend to have unmaximised windows open. But in this case you can easily resize your browser window to match the site width, or live with horizontal scrollbars.
A sign of hope
A List Apart made the first big step when they came out with the fixed width of 960 pixles. And within days a post titled "A List Too Far Apart?" appeared on 456 Berra Street. As you might've guessed, the comments were some what mixed.
All in all I still think the wide concept is not so wrong here. If you resize it to 800x600 you can still see the most important parts - the logo, the content and the third column with the editors choice. If somebody with that width wants to search ALA, let them scroll their narrow browser.
I belive that now with ALA the whole concept of building websites is moving to 1024x768. Finally.
- my commment on 456 Berra Street
So what's the deal
Well. I've signed up for the CSS Reboot Fall 2005 and have completed the basic page design. I've drawn it to be just under 800px wide, but have been considering making it a bit wider to let my content breathe a bit. And the only reason I can think of not to do so at this moment is the Mac users (and their unmaximised windows as mentioned earlier). I'll have to sleep on this one for a couple of days, but have to say I'm leaning towards making it wider then everything I've made so far. Well what do you think?
:D
Also, most Mac users out there have 17+" screens so their screen resolutions are even far beyond 1024 (only the smallest laptops have the resolution 1024 by 768...that's a 12" screen people!)
Besides, Mac users are used of non-maximized windows. But even if that is so, the default browser width is enough for 1024xWhatever resolution...
Also, people, whose screens have resolution lower than 1024x768, are probably running systems with browsers incapable of understanding CSS or are mostly still running DOS ;)
IMHO, the maximum width for a website is about 960px...if you need it... if you're Miro, you don't even need more than 250px ;)
Are horizontal scrollbars so bad?
Btw, congrats doen, you posted the 100th comment :)
About the Mac users: If they're too lazy to maximize that window, screw them :P
Anyhoo... go wider... screw the people with small screens :)
(yay, I was number 100...iiiiiiiii)
Today, we have exactly the same problem, except people *tend* to have larger viewports in terms of pixels. That doesn't help in the slightest, because you *will* get plenty of people for whom 1024x768 is unreliable (the iBook I bought last year almost never has a browser window open that is that wide, and my workstation has a sidebar open half the time).
The only rational position to take is that you should optimise your design for 1024x768 because that is still by far the most common resolution, but you should attempt to make it work for as small a width as possible.