What’s the resolution of your screen for surfing the net?

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:11 am

I was wondering about the screen resolution used by the Z community, as we are building a special web page, and would like to find out how the “tech” people work in the internet.

Mine is 1152 X 864, what is yours?

Is there someone using 800 X 600 still?

Cheers

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2006-09-16 09:12 ]

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:49 am

1680x1050 (native res of my laptop screen)

I think most people use at least 1024x768

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:46 am

1280X1024 on net/game PC
1600X1200 + 1280x1024 on daw
1024x768 on laptop

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:07 am

On 2006-09-16 09:55, stardust wrote:
1024 here because most script and swf are not scaling

Do you mean that you would usually use a lower resolution, so, bigger screen? Is it?

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:50 pm

1280 x 1024, typical 17" lcd.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:59 pm

I think 1024x768 is standard, it's pointless to go any lower than that. But it's also risky to go above since notebooks and lcd's are fixed.

Of the few web projects that I've worked on so far, the biggest was 800px wide, and that being a site completely made in flash. Rest are more or less around 600x400, which are flash content probably meant to be embedded in a website that is around 800 wide.

I think most clients appreciate a scaling size, if you were to do on in flash. Like, it's not scaling in size, but the content position is scaled in relationship with the window size.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2006-09-16 16:00 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:29 pm

I help manage a site that gets about 2 million unqiue visitors a month. The breakdown according to the site stats is roughly:

1024 x 768: 53%
1280 x 1024: 17%
800 x 600: 10%
1280 x 800: 5%
1152 x 864: 3%
1440x900: 1.5%

Afer that comes various higher-res bits and pieces, mostly wide-screen layouts There's no one surfing less than 800 x 600.

Also the 800 x 600 audience is declining by about 1.3% per month, while the 1280 x 1024 audience is going up by about 0.7% per month. The 1024 x 768 audience is about steady; other higher resolutions going up slowly.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:57 am

It's the first time I see 1152 X 864 as screen resolution.

I use 1024 x 768 for everything.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:53 am

On 2006-09-17 06:57, paulrmartin wrote:
It's the first time I see 1152 X 864 as screen resolution.

I use 1024 x 768 for everything.

Cheers Paul.

Well, it depends on your screen as well as your video card. The combination of both elements gives you many posibilities that are not currently available in other conbinations, each conbination has its own advantages. For us here, 1152 X 864 is a very confortable resolution for a 17" monitor.

valis · Post by **valis** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:58 am

2048x1536 on my main machine when doing print & high end graphcis work work, 1600x1200 otherwise (music & web dev). I also still use a crt for color fidelity reasons--hitachi 22" pro monitor.

1152x864 for my 'small' machines around the room (15" monitors). 1024x768 on the laptop.

Of course I'm completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding standards, I tend to develop for resolutions around 1024x768 minus window chrome (slightly over 1000x600) when doing web related projects. Some clients still want 800x600 compatibility too. As ken suggests I also prefer css/html that renders to a layout that is flexible enough to collapse down to your lowest target resolutions, while being able to 'expand' certain portions of the content to fill blank space for higher resolutions.

Flash I tend to make a fixed size as I do not like it when it scales bitmaps (and its rare these days that sites will be all vector unless you're doing minimal design stuff or something just for a laugh).

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:10 pm

Spirit:

Thank you for your valuable info, this gives me an update of what people is using the developed countries as well. I am nevertheless surprised that there still are people using such resolutions as 800 X 600, I guess these are those old PC that they have never changed, because today it is quite difficult to even find a 14” screen in the market, they seem to have vanished.

Valis:
The expandable option suggested by Ken and you is the option we always use too. BTW: it must be great to work with such a high resolution in a 22” screen, wow!

ChrisWerner · Post by **ChrisWerner** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:17 pm

At the college we produce any site for 1024x768.

I don´t know the content you want to public but if it is possible, drop all your content in tables with percentage values, so the size will fit on any resolution!

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisWerner on 2006-09-17 22:18 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:58 pm

Hi Chris

Thank you for your answer. We don’t really need answers about how to build web pages, but an update about the resolution most people are using today in developed countries.

We are building a very special site format, so it is no conventional; it’s a mixture of flash and html kind of thing, but most of all flash with quite unusual interface, that’s why I need to be updated, and the Z is a perfect place to ask for it, as I realise many of you are involved with technology and know what they are talking about. Cheers.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:07 am

On 2006-09-17 22:17, ChrisWerner wrote:
At the college we produce any site for 1024x768.

I don´t know the content you want to public but if it is possible, drop all your content in tables with percentage values, so the size will fit on any resolution!

That is an interesting issue though. Going back just a year or two the "percentage width" sites seemed to be the popular format. Lately the "fixed width" sites seem to have made a big comeback. Certainly fixed width is much more popular with designers since they get better control over how things present.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:57 am

Your right Spirit & it's also sites which are being really heavily updated (like hourly) which are going for fixed width (mostly 800x600, left aligned)

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:21 am

1024 here.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:48 am

1280x1024
19" crt

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:39 pm

Using css it's really easy to combine fixed & variable widths (think slashdot or most modern CMS packages). Using tables is to be avoided these days due to rendering issues, although of course if you're doing a REALLY large site it's necessary to have a tables format load for 10 year old browser compatibility (with the appropriate browser check on site load).