800x600 - should we care?

Checking the stats on all our sites recently I found that visitors using 800x600 were on a par with Safari browser users - that's about one a week!

Should we still design for 800 x 600 or is it time to move up to 1024x768?

Thank you.

I must admit I do now.
But if I wasn't so lazy I'd size in % and do both.

I size in % if it suits the design but I've recently been asked by a client to display a map on their home page and you can't size gifs in % terms.

Maps, as I'm sure you know, carry a lot of detail and fitting into a 760 wide page means the place names are a bit on the small side; hence my question.

If the content requires it go bigger. Theres no point catering for people that wont be able to see the information very well anyway i.e. if you have to squish the map so its not clear to let them see it then there's very little benefit in letting them see it! Obviously its a better situation if 800x600's can view your site easily but nowadays its not the end of the world.

You also have to take into consideration people who have their Favourites list open all the time (me included) so this reduces the amount of visible space on my screen.

If I didn't take the 800x600 users into consideration I would be a failure, accessibility is one of the biggest things you need, anyway you can do liquid layouts

Dan, I'll leave you to argue accessibility with iZone but tell me, how do you make images fluid?

So what size would you suggest we all aim for Craig?

You shouldnt be using % for images. You can use background images for anything that needs to repeat.

Some layouts dont suit liquid and some do, it depends what the client wants.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what your're trying to say.

dont use for example

Code: Select all

<img src="path/to/domain/image.jpg" height="100%" width="100%" />

use

Code: Select all

<img src="path/to/domain/image.jpg" height="100" width="100" />

Pixels not %

You should aim for 1024*768. if your site shrinks down to 800*600 then its a bonus.

Actually you should use:

HTML: Select all

<img src="path/to/domain/image.jpg" height="100" width="100" alt="Your Alt here" />

You can never forget the ALT tag as it is XHTML.

I didnt add the alt because it was about image measurements :P

Actually gentlemen you're both wrong because this thread is about screen resolution and not how one should display images.

Unfortunately the thread has been pulled off-topic by people who should/think (they) know better.

A week ago, I would have said no, even though I still design for 800 x 600.

Then I went to my parents house. They have a 15" monitor w/ 800 x 600.
I also fixed an old guys computer, same again.

But, on the other hand. Neither of them use the net to buy anything. Just to check email's and the occasional 'sunday drive' around the world wide web.

I still will continue to design for 800 x 600 because I'm anal.

Just my thoughts,
Jim.

Well maybe you or someone who is reading this thread has actually learned something about how to correctly display images?

Dont be an idiot all your life.

Q4T

Yep, my folks use 800x600 too and they have a 19" monitor. Their friends are all the same. A lot of them have tried a higher resolution (the ones who can figure out how to change it, or that it can be changed, lol) but find they can't see things properly so they go back to 800x600.

I always try and use % and a fluid design where possible - keeps everyone happy no matter what resolution they've got. I use CSS and a separate stylesheet for small screen devices as well. Though 800x600 numbers are falling dramatically, the number of people accessing the web on PDAs etc. is only going to increase.