do you optimize your site for 800x600?
 

I optomize for 1024x768 because I think it looks better but does that hurt my sales?

whens the last time you saw a pc for sale that was set up for 800x600?

Stopped doing 800x600 about a year ago, now we do at least 1000 wide

I usually keep it somewhere in the middle so people with small monitors don't have to scoll over TOO much but its still wide enough.

Me too find 800*600 meaningless however still rather the all resolution set CSS

No I do not.

Nor do I code video for dial up. It's 2007. Get broadband.

:disgust

95% of our clients request there work at 800...

I'm about to jump over to 1024 now, by the way does anybody have any good stats in terms of screen res per country, or maybe somebody can check their members stats?

Last month I think the worldwide average was around 13-14% at 800x600, however I'm guessing most of these are in third world countries.

1024x768 - 52.68%
800x600 - 13.97%
1280x1024 - 12.71%
1280x800 - 7.46%
1152x864 - 3.11%

Sample of about a million visits. The list goes on but that'll do.

nope, if surfer can't buy a monitor, he's not going to pay for porn:2 cents:

I optimize for 1024*768 since about a year, but keep 800*600 a bit in mind
800*600 looks so tiny on a widescreen monitor
I even use 1024*768 on my 14" laptop-screen

Is anyone taking into consideration the growing popularity of WiFi internet access from PSP, Archos, etc?

nope, only 1024....

i dont make any tables wider than 800.

1024x768

thank you

If someone hasn't spent money in the past 8 years to upgrade past 800x600, they sure won't be spending money today either, especially on a porn site.

Forget the past. Make a site built for broadband, big screen, kick-ass pc's. Users with the latest and greatest technology love to push their machines to the limit, and like spending money to do so.

Mark Prince

word. :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

people with 800/600 dont have money so why? its as you will be doing sites without nice design only with logo and some collored tables for 56kb modem users right? :) useless

1024x768 , but usually try to stay to 900 wide.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

I'm doing 978x1305. Don't most browsers automatically reduce to fit?

I hope you're joking....




Very scary responses in this thread.

fuck that , any new site i make will be bigger than 800x600

starting not to care.
 

depends on what it is on the page and how you're presenting it .. i like the bottom scroll bar lately, I think it's been heavily neglected ~ the good folks at myspace don't seem to care ... but the correct answer would be 1024x768 unless you have an 800x600 resolution then you might tend to disagree...

Wait, I'm not the web designer but when I browse the web it doesn't matter what size the pics are, my Firefox browser shrinks them to fit inside the browser...it will say 55%, 33% or 76%, etc. in the header so you can see the amount of reduction.........then a magnifying glass tool can enlarge them. Don't know if it works that way in other browsers, but that's how it is in Firefox.

I agree ！！！！

this thread is about sites, not pics

If this helps:
Across 2 paysites in the last day:

Site1:
12232 49.39% 1024x768
7049 28.46% 1280x1024
2408 9.72% 800x600
1966 7.94% Unknown
971 3.92% 1152x864
109 0.44% 1600x1200
29 0.12% 640x480

Site 2:
12475 50.33% 1024x768
6649 26.83% 1280x1024
2622 10.58% 800x600
2030 8.19% Unknown
830 3.35% 1152x864
149 0.60% 1600x1200
30 0.12% 640x480

Also a good note:
MSIE 6 is 47%, MSIE 7 is 26% and Firefox 1&2 is 16% (the rest mixed).

i think the best way to go is to design for an 800x600 at this time but allow it to "stretch" to bigger resolutions maintaining an equal composition to larger resolutions, that's where a good designer/html guy comes in ... if you care ... or if and when you're paid to care ...

It would be nice to assemble these stats just from the inside of members areas.

I think many surfers with high screen resolutions don't maximize the browser windows. They have opened also other applications like WinAmp for playing music or the media center for watching TV while browsing the internet. The size of the website design isn't that important i think. It's just important, that the site looks nice.

Amazingly many of our members have 800x600. That said we do everything at least 1000 pixel wide. 800x600 sites look bad and I think we have to think about the majority who can enjoy the full resolution. The rest will upgrade their system sooner or later anyway.

Several usability studies suggest that surfers far and away prefer full-screen layouts. Assuming they are correct, fluid designs would seem to be the best way to go. But...

The graphic layouts popular for paysite tours often cannot be handled that way (although it is technically possible to make static graphics resizable, the results are usually poor). Expanding text also has to be done with care, since many people are not comfortable reading overly wide lines. And if you do go for a fixed-width layout, the choice of width isn't as simple as looking at popular screen resolutions, because many who have larger screens do not browse full-screen. Before totally abandoning the 800x600 crowd, you might also consider how much effort you put into tweaks to chase much smaller parts of your potential audience.

The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate. If you are going to force surfers to scroll horizontally, I strongly recommend keeping the things you need them to see (such as navigation) on the left of the screen, using the area right of 760 pixels for content (which they will probably be more inclined to scroll for).

I would stick currently to 950 pixels or less for fixed-width layouts, but more importantly than the simple width issue, do you check your designs to see what happens when Firefox users (for example) change the font size with a turn of their mousewheel? You can't stop them doing that and the results can be horrendous. Many fluid designs break at that point, not only fixed ones.

"The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate."

I know it sucks but what surfers? The surfers with their dick in one hand and credit card in the other or the ones who give a fuck about graphics and if your page is correctly done so other designers think you know what you're doing?


MSIE 69.3 %
FIREFOX 19.3 %
NETSCAPE 2.6 %
Others 8.7 %

1024x768 is the stardard screen resolution...the users or surfers will find your site odd...

There are mainstream businesses which spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on usability studies. It's entirely up to you whether you think they are accurate or relevant...

Actually I'm not even sure what point you were making. Mine was go whatever way you think is right, but put some thought into it beyond "everyone has big monitors, so I can do big layouts".

I think the above is enough to design a web sites that is compatible to 800x600 and looks great at 1024x768, and is compatible with higher resolutions.
using tables that use % instead of fixed width can be very handy here.

-some uses with 800 are still gonna convert to sales - don't lose them.
- in the near future a lot of users will use over 1024 - act now thinking of the future.
- your number 1 goal is for the 1024 users to see the best design.

I would just like to see one or know the source.

thank you great post. I agree :thumbsup

What about Flash?
 

1024x768 is my default for building sites

But a Flash based site with a coded width and height of 100% will stretch ( or shrink ) to whatever size the resolution is set to

With Flash you might get a bit of distortion on higher rez's, but it all depends on the quality of the images you put in.

Not using tables at all would be even better...

Your goal should be for everyone to see a site which will encourage them to spend money. I'm not being facetious. There are lots of threads around the boards in which webmasters take seriously topics which at best might bring their audience up a couple of points here, a couple there. But then for some reason when we get onto talking about screen resolutions, plenty seem happy to make choices which might cost them 10%+, with barely a second thought.

That's not logical, although yes, I suppose if for some reason you cannot satisfy everyone equally, you would put your biggest audience first.

bad idea:Oh crap

yes i've been told to :) ..but what for?!?

Many valid points in this thread but equally many very dumb ones. To suggest, as many posters have, that up to 14% of your traffic with 800x600 res does not spend money and is OK to piss off is at beast very, very shortsighted.

most of the users now are switching to 1024 X 768 res.

I was thinking about this last night while surfing GFY in the tub on the PSP I won from islanddollars.com last summer.

I believe I will be making myself some mobile friendly versions of my sites.

1280x1024 here

myy members love it

nope, 1024x768

thats right homie, don't get slapped:1orglaugh