DESIGNERS: How wide are you making your sites these days?
 

I've always stuck with having designers build for 780-800 width, but with bigger monitors and less and less people on small monitors, I'm wondering if a lot of you are changing.

What are you currently building sites width wise?

800, or screenwide

Between 740 and 760 - still to fit an 800 screen..

still on 780-800

1024x768 is still the most popular (in my experience at least)

i finally started doing more than 800, biggest so far is 900, i do keep it in the 700px range.

new trend for paysites is big wide ass bold designs - 900-1000px wide. they do look good.

SAMPLE

http://www.pornbuilders.com/portfoli...arlibanktn.jpg

760-800 is my usual

most are still made for 800.. but some are allready moving up to fit 1024 screens.. i say in 1 or 2 years the minimun should be 1024..

I design at 1024x768 but use fluid as opposed to fixed widths if at all possible. Some time in the near future I'm going to abandon fluid for fixed 1024x768. And I'm also going to abandon code tweaking and workarounds for IEv6 and Opera in the near future also.

I'm ready to go back to 10" amber monitors and BASIC :1orglaugh

for 1024

I still do 784 generally. That is when I do design at all.

Yeah, I do some Design work, and just got a 22' wide screen, some of these sites are soooooo small....

760px and 980px

wow. I can't believe how many people still design for 800x600 resolution. It's such a tiny percentage of visitors. I've been doing for 1024+ for something like 2 years now.

Yeah that's pretty nice.

looks good but for the 11% (roughly) of users with 800x600 it's going to be a waste.

Here is my total traffic screen resolutions: this is from around 100k uniques daily:

1024x768 - 50.5%
1280x1024 - 25.0%
800x600 - 11.0%
1440X900 - 4%
- other

im working on a new site and it will be 950 px wide, but is bigger indeed better? we'll see.... ;)

10%-15% use 800x600 native resolution or smaller. Many surfers with higher resolutions do not browse full-screen. Certainly we are still talking about a minority who will be forced by wider layouts to scroll horizontally, but that is one of the most hated features a site can have and that minority is still a large number.

One of the paradoxes I see over and over, is that on the boards there are discussions between webmasters trying to find ways to squeeze an extra point or two out of their traffic. But you also see topics such as this, where (often some of the same) webmasters cheerfully propose ignoring a double-digit segment of their potential customer base...

And people like me who have monitors that have a native resolution of 1650 X1080 can't use it much because then everything looks so fucking small. I tend to stay away from sites that are small. Now think of it this way, I paid $600 for my monitor the guy using 800X600 is still probably using the 17 in CRT that came with his wal-mart computer he bought 6 years ago and paid $500 for and hasn't upgraded anything on it once. Now who is MORE likely to spend money on your site?

A fancy restaurant could cut it's prices by 75% and get many more customers. It doesn't mean it'll make more money.


There comes a time when you have to stop catering to the lowest common denominator and make them catch up to everyone else. I'm sure 1/1000 still use 640X480. So aren't you being unfair to them by making them scroll on your 800X 600 site.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

I've been using 800 to 1024 and some full width.

1024.....

...thus missing the point completely.

Nowhere did I say anyone should design for the guy with low resolution: I merely pointed up the illogicality of webmasters in relation to some issues chasing low single-digit advantages while with others, throwing away double-digit segments of their audience.

Since we are presented with the reality of many resolutions and that is unlikely to change, I was attempting to imply that we no longer have the luxury of being able to design for any single resolution. That's tough for people still stuck on tables, particularly if they prefer fixed measures to percentages. Then again should any professional designer still be misusing code, given that the reason for that misuse is now 5+ years in the past?

I think that the webmaster who use 800*600 design loose the guys who use a big resolution screen and webmaster site with a 1024 resolution loose the surfer who is with a 800*600 so it's a win win or a lost lost. For the long term 1024 is a win.

My 24" has a native resolution of 1920x1200 and nothing on it looks small. Everything looks great. You must have a shitty monitor. :(

I design for 1024x768 resolutions - Meaning 955 pixels wide maximum

that's hot looking... i talked with her recently about her site... i guess this is it.

800 pixels wide.

Mostly 970

950px for 1024 :)