Preliminary surfer browser resolution results. - GoFuckYourself.com

Tempest · 04-23-2007, 05:17 AM

There's always the discussion about whether or not designing for 800x600 is still vaild or not. The argument against it is that most computers sold these days are at least 1024x768, However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the surfer browses full screen.

So I'm running some tests on a small site using javascript to grab the actual "window" width etc. There's some issues with it that I need to review, but here's some stats to date.

What I've done is arbitrarily split the width into greater than 900 pixels and less than 900 pixels to simplify things. Perhaps I should have picked a different value.

5460 hits logged...

Screen: 1024 x 768 : 2803 (51.34%)

window width > 900 : 1822 (65.00%)
window width < 900 : 981 (35.00%)

Screen: 1280 x 1024 : 772 (14.14%)

window width > 900 : 593 (76.81%)
window width < 900 : 179 (23.19%)

Screen: 800 x 600 : 611 (11.19%)

window width < 900 : 606 (99.18%)
window width > 900 : 5 (0.82%)

You'll notice there's something "odd" here given 5 of the hits registered > 900 yet the screen reported it was only 800x600.. I'll have to investigate this.

Screen: 1280 x 800 : 488 (8.94%)

window width > 900 : 329 (67.42%)
window width < 900 : 159 (32.58%)

Screen: 1152 x 864 : 246 (4.51%)

window width > 900 : 182 (73.98%)
window width < 900 : 64 (26.02%)

I didn't calc any window info for the ones below:
Screen: 1440 x 900 : 144 (2.64%)
Screen: 1280 x 960 : 87 (1.59%)
Screen: 1680 x 1050 : 70 (1.28%)
Screen: 1280 x 768 : 62 (1.14%)
Screen: 1400 x 1050 : 46 (0.84%)
Screen: 1600 x 1200 : 22 (0.40%)
Screen: 1920 x 1200 : 20 (0.37%)

Out of all 5460 hits (and this is probably the most pertinent):

window width > 900 : 3333 (61.04%)
window width < 900 : 2127 (38.96%)

So it would appear that designing a site for 1024, it going to iritate 38%+ of the surfers since they'll have to readjust their browser in order to view it properly.

Big_D · 04-23-2007, 05:22 AM

wow....reading....

Radiate · 04-23-2007, 06:42 AM

some good info, many thanks for that

Tempest · 04-23-2007, 02:56 PM

Bump for the day crew.

borked · 04-23-2007, 03:03 PM

Code:

  1024x768	 3520 (46.8 &#37;)
  1280x1024	 1774 (23.6 %)
  1280x800	 505 (6.7 %)
  1152x864	 398 (5.3 %)
  800x600	 337 (4.5 %)
  1440x900	 239 (3.2 %)
  1280x960	 170 (2.3 %)
  1680x1050	 138 (1.8 %)
  1600x1200	 93 (1.2 %)
  1280x768	 92 (1.2 %)

borked · 04-23-2007, 03:06 PM

Code:

Plugins	Number
    Java	 7278 (96.7 %)
    Flash	 7020 (93.3 %)
    Windowsmedia	 6301 (83.7 %)
    Quicktime	 4551 (60.5 %)
    Pdf	 4470 (59.4 %)
    Realplayer	 4093 (54.4 %)
    Director	 2339 (31.1 %)

for those wondering about plguins for their media...

this is on a user base that is 95.2% windows (though 30% are on FF)

RawAlex · 04-23-2007, 04:22 PM

Tempest, interesting numbers. I know a few people with very large screens that surfer at a reduced size because most websites aren't that wide. A bit of a chicken and the egg sort of a problem.

Based on the numbers borked put up, 90+% of all users have a display capable of showing a larger browser window. I think that using that space is starting to look like a better and better idea (getting more above the fold).

DjSap · 04-23-2007, 04:37 PM

Where did you collect your number btw? Inside or outside a members area? We need to differentiate between freeloaders and paying customers as browser stats are not the same for the two groups.

And your odd stat of above 900 in width for 800x600 is explained by the fact that people can make their windows bigger than their resolution width by manually resizing them.

04-23-2007, 05:17 AM	#1
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Preliminary surfer browser resolution results. There's always the discussion about whether or not designing for 800x600 is still vaild or not. The argument against it is that most computers sold these days are at least 1024x768, However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the surfer browses full screen. So I'm running some tests on a small site using javascript to grab the actual "window" width etc. There's some issues with it that I need to review, but here's some stats to date. What I've done is arbitrarily split the width into greater than 900 pixels and less than 900 pixels to simplify things. Perhaps I should have picked a different value. 5460 hits logged... Screen: 1024 x 768 : 2803 (51.34%) window width > 900 : 1822 (65.00%) window width < 900 : 981 (35.00%) Screen: 1280 x 1024 : 772 (14.14%) window width > 900 : 593 (76.81%) window width < 900 : 179 (23.19%) Screen: 800 x 600 : 611 (11.19%) window width < 900 : 606 (99.18%) window width > 900 : 5 (0.82%) You'll notice there's something "odd" here given 5 of the hits registered > 900 yet the screen reported it was only 800x600.. I'll have to investigate this. Screen: 1280 x 800 : 488 (8.94%) window width > 900 : 329 (67.42%) window width < 900 : 159 (32.58%) Screen: 1152 x 864 : 246 (4.51%) window width > 900 : 182 (73.98%) window width < 900 : 64 (26.02%) I didn't calc any window info for the ones below: Screen: 1440 x 900 : 144 (2.64%) Screen: 1280 x 960 : 87 (1.59%) Screen: 1680 x 1050 : 70 (1.28%) Screen: 1280 x 768 : 62 (1.14%) Screen: 1400 x 1050 : 46 (0.84%) Screen: 1600 x 1200 : 22 (0.40%) Screen: 1920 x 1200 : 20 (0.37%) Out of all 5460 hits (and this is probably the most pertinent): window width > 900 : 3333 (61.04%) window width < 900 : 2127 (38.96%) So it would appear that designing a site for 1024, it going to iritate 38%+ of the surfers since they'll have to readjust their browser in order to view it properly.

04-23-2007, 03:03 PM	#5
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	Code: 1024x768 3520 (46.8 %) 1280x1024 1774 (23.6 %) 1280x800 505 (6.7 %) 1152x864 398 (5.3 %) 800x600 337 (4.5 %) 1440x900 239 (3.2 %) 1280x960 170 (2.3 %) 1680x1050 138 (1.8 %) 1600x1200 93 (1.2 %) 1280x768 92 (1.2 %) __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202 Last edited by borked; 04-23-2007 at 03:06 PM..

04-23-2007, 03:06 PM	#6
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	Code: Plugins Number Java 7278 (96.7 %) Flash 7020 (93.3 %) Windowsmedia 6301 (83.7 %) Quicktime 4551 (60.5 %) Pdf 4470 (59.4 %) Realplayer 4093 (54.4 %) Director 2339 (31.1 %) for those wondering about plguins for their media... this is on a user base that is 95.2% windows (though 30% are on FF) __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

04-23-2007, 04:37 PM	#8
DjSap Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,869	Where did you collect your number btw? Inside or outside a members area? We need to differentiate between freeloaders and paying customers as browser stats are not the same for the two groups. And your odd stat of above 900 in width for 800x600 is explained by the fact that people can make their windows bigger than their resolution width by manually resizing them. __________________ Blog Themes, TGP Design, Writing Services, Grunt Work ICQ: 66871495

04-23-2007, 05:22 AM	#2
Big_D CRAZY MOFUKKA Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,296	wow....reading....

04-23-2007, 06:42 AM	#3
Radiate Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: the center Posts: 1,454	some good info, many thanks for that __________________ icq 199437756 - contact me if you need a solid hosting solution

04-23-2007, 02:56 PM	#4
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Bump for the day crew.

04-23-2007, 04:22 PM	#7
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Tempest, interesting numbers. I know a few people with very large screens that surfer at a reduced size because most websites aren't that wide. A bit of a chicken and the egg sort of a problem. Based on the numbers borked put up, 90+% of all users have a display capable of showing a larger browser window. I think that using that space is starting to look like a better and better idea (getting more above the fold).