What's Your Screen Resolution? Or Industry Standard?

My website is almost complete and I realize that people's screen resolutions

will affect how the website is displayed. I'm curious as to what is "standard"

resolution screen size and which resolution you're using. Or, what resolution

you had in mind when designing your website.<p></p>

 

If you don't know how to determine your resolution, I've outlined the steps: <p></p>

-right click on your desktop <p></p>

-go to properties <p></p>

-click the furthest tab to the right called "Settings"<p></p>

-look to the bottom left for the resolution (ie: 1024x768)<p></p>

 

Any responses to this are greatly appreciated in helping me determine the look

and design of the website.

1920x1200

most folks are at least using 1024x768 now, but I thought it wise to make sure mine would fit on an 800x600 screen wothout scrolling...

at my job, where we host about 150 web sites and see millions of users a day, our reports

show that about 90% of users have 1024X768 or greater

This sort of study will return, I suspect, an informal result of 1024x768, but there's one

major problem with this: it encourages the assumption that people browse full screen.

 

Design your website to reflow as much as possible. Try to make it cope with varying browser

widths, not just screen resolutions. If you must make use of a fixed width, make the stuff in

the right 210 pixels or so stuff people can avoid scrolling to constantly.

 

Oh, and: a mac. 1440x900, and don't expect to get more than 800x600 of it.

1680x 1050 ( 20" iMac Duo Core 2)

1920x1440 22" Trinitron.<br /><br />

 

Another <b>extremely</b> important point: <b>never set font sizes in pixels</b>. <br /><br />

 

Use a physical measurement like mm, a printer's measurement like pt, or a relative measurement like em; never px. While your 10px font may be 10pt on your 12" laptop; it's 4pt on my screen.

In a previous life, I worked on some websites (ex. landsend.com). It's all about inclusivity - you want you site to look good on the widest range of monitors and window sizes as possible. 1024x768 is a good "full-screen" size to aim for as the "sweet spot" these days (I haven't checked my access logs in some time, but Kier's data sounds about right).

 

Don't forget to check some different bit-depths, and monitor states, too. Remember, not everybody has a calibrated monitor, so shadows often block up more than you might expect from looking at your own (or other photographers) monitors. I'd suggest checking your site on some non-photographer friends' machines to make sure it looks OK even with poorly adjusted monitors.

 

FWIW, my monitors are:

1024x768, 1152x864, 1140x1050, and 1280x960

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

At our site (one of the top 5 most visited web sites in the world), between logs and usability studies, it's a toss between 800x600 and 1024x768. Also, note that dial-up is still the most preferred manner of access in the world too. By a VERY large margin. Unless you only want to cater only to those with a big pipes, keep that in mind from a content perspective.

I'm running 1600x1200, but I'm a photographer.<p>

It's best to design your site so people with as small as 1024 x 768 can view it easily. <p>

When I check my website visits, there's actually a way to show information about the people

visiting.... things like their screen resolution, what browser, OS platform, connection speed,

flash installation, etc.... It's surprising how many people are using small monitors. 1024 x

768 is very common.

I just checked my google analytics... I am in NY, and I would imagine it would vary geographically a little bit, here is real data:

 

1. 1024x768 246 47.58%

2. 1280x1024 66 12.77%

3. 800x600 55 10.64%

4. 1280x800 40 7.74%

5. 1600x1200 25 4.84%

6. 1152x864 22 4.26%

7. 1680x1050 16 3.09%

8. 1440x900 13 2.51%

9. 1280x768 7 1.35%

10. 1920x1200 6 1.16%

<p>Looking at the data supplied by Robert, I am glad to see that the long touted idea of catering to the lowest-common indicator of 800 X 600) is no longer true.<br /> 1024 X 768 definitely seems to be the norm.</p>

 

<p>As for screen resolution Carissa, I would hazard a guess and say that almost everything out there (except for the 800 x 600 folks) would be at least 24 or 32 bits.</p>

 

<p>Hey, I just found some more <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp"> Browser Stats</a> for you. Do scroll to the bottom of all that data. </p>

 

Best Wishes.

Mac Cinema screen @ 1920 X 1200.

oops, that my working resolution. My web master sets the resolution for my site.

Wow, such wonderful replies! Also, I didn't realize that about the fonts and browser statistics. Every one of you has been immensely helpful, thank you!

So I was talking to my boyfriend (the programming guy) about this issue, and we discussed the possibility of dynamically constraining images based on the user's resolution. Do any of you do this? He's researching a way in Java Script, though the site is coded in mysql and php.

Imagine if you set up your website for a high screen resolution and larger files so dsl/cable is the norm.<BR><BR> Imagine if the brides parents shopping for a wedding photographer are on dialup and have poorer eyes and have the screen res say 600x800 or even just VGA 480x640. <BR><BR>They may pass you over for another photographer who's website loads up jato powered on dialup, with better quick loading images that are a smaller. In extreme cases the bloaded pages never seem to load and some folks dont know even how to scroll around and find anything.<BR><BR><b>Whats "normal for screen res and "normal" for whats ok to have load in Kbytes for each webpage varies with the type of product one is marketing.</b> <BR><BR>When a high screen res is used and also a bloaded web page; one just ignores a possible set of clients. They will go to anothers site that is sized better and loads quicker. One could also just say business is so good that one wants to exclude folks whos names end in M thru P also, or folks over 65, or folks who are on dialup. Weight the "coolness" of having a larger screen res and larger kByte web pages versus what clients you purposely want to runoff.<BR><BR>In products marketed to rural and or older folks alot of the screen resolutions mentioned by others are plain poor, newbie, you just tick folks off. <BR><BR>Assuming that all folk have flash, or want to load plugins on dialup can be a mistake too.<BR><BR>Whats easy to use for a 16year old on cable with 1920 pixels horizontally might not "go over well" with grandparents on 26.4 dialup with a 1998 computer using VGA and running netscape.In extreme cases a single web page can take 1/2 HOUR to load on dialup becuase of sloppy web page design. With dsl/cable being more common many web pages are alot sloppier than in the past. Long ago the same thing happened when 9600bps was common, and 14.4 and 26.4 came out! Some places never could go to 50k due to the pots running thru a slick, ie plain old telephone lines being too far away from the CO the central office for 50k to work.<BR><BR>GO LOOK AT YOUR website on dialup, slower dialup at 26.4k and see if it loads ok; or bogs like its dead and should be passed over. <BR><BR>Also see if the site has weirdnesses with Firefox, Opera, old Netscape , Mac stuff etc.<BR><BR>A better website design doesnt insult folks or waste their time. Better sites have paths for dsl/cable versus dialup, or refrain from a bog unless one really clicks on some features.<BR><BR>Many sites are great but give no contact info, or where roughly the business is located.<BR><BR>Here I run VGA thru say 1920 wide; depending on the PURPOSE of the computer. Many boxes are at say 600x800 for office data entry, ie UPS shipping table, Photoshop retouch boxes are abit higher. The VGA 480x640 monitors are on the wall with giant 19" CRT for RIP boxes etc, so one can see far away whats going on in the heat of battle while running a print shop. The Laptop I am one right now is 768x1024. I vary the "screen resolution" for each box I have to work well for its job, and dont worry about any so called standards to follow. Once old VGA was called high res, compared to the RCA jack I have on a working IBM PC that one can connect to a dumb monitor. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Whats the "average of the swarm" of screen resolutions here with photographers on Photo.net is going to higher that the typical resolution of you clients footing the wedding package. You want it to be easy for them to load and view.

Re <i>So I was talking to my boyfriend (the programming guy) about this issue, and we discussed the possibility of dynamically constraining images based on the user's resolution. Do any of you do this? He's researching a way in Java Script, though the site is coded in mysql and php.</i><BR><BR><BR>Also explore what happens if your target clients dont have Java installed, or the latest Java updates. Many folks dont like to have to do updates on their computers just to peek at a possible vendor. They might just do to another who's web page loads snappy without tomfoolery and bypass yours.

They might just <b>go</b> to another who's web page loads snappy without tomfoolery and bypass yours.<BR><BR><BR>In the couple web sites of mine, I have learned alot by viewing them at neighbors oddball old systems, to find "problems" since most of my boxes have all updates, Java, Flash plugins etc. The problems can be just that chap has an ancient browser that doesnt view a progressive jpeg at all. Thus they might not even see ones images.<BR><BR> After Katrina many of us had just slow dialup on marginal water soaked static filled lines that backed down from 50k to 26 or 14k. One would get on a government Fema site that didnt like firefox AT ALL , or a insurance site that required some more damn pluggins to procede further in their rat maze of a website. One would have enough gasoline to run for say for 1 hour per day the computer and some lights, and be cursing at the webmasters for the bogs and the totally retarded cute stuff they pass off as being professional. The worse place one wants a cute giant bog is in an emergency, the jackassery of bloaded web pages, browser requirements, plugin requirements while running a generator on limited gasoline makes one want to place the webmaster in the stocks. I sure hope in their own emergency they have to eat their own mature web bogs. <BR><BR>Ponder if ones cute webpage add-ons really add value, or just irrate folks. Test new things out and view them on others machines to tone down bogs and required upgrades. Here I use another site as the test area; so the active site is not the one suffering from my own html and bog mistakes.

<i>what happens if your target clients dont have Java installed, or the latest Java updates</i>

<br /><br />

JavaScript is not Java.

Not to confuse everyone. But it is your Video card...not your screen...that determines your

resolution. Your rez for a screen is about 50-100 dpi....that's why when you increase your

video rez...the object gets smaller.

 

If you keep the file size down to about 50K....you should be fine.

 

Dave

Re <i>what happens if your target clients dont have Java installed, or the latest Java updates

<BR><BR>

JavaScript is not Java.</i><BR><BR>But the lame message one gets when one gets on a poor website is "java is required to view" begineers/newbies/greenhorns website; not javascript. <BR><BR>Thus from the actual clients viewpoint they have to download more BS to see see the cute things folks do their sites. <BR><BR>Thus if you mention java script is required you adding more confusion.<BR><BR>On <a href="http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp"><b> java.com 's download area</b></a> its called "java software" NINE TIMES; and the word "script" is not even mentioned. <BR><BR>

One can create a gif image thats thousands of pixels long and still keep it under 50k in size.

This gif is 299 x 600 pixels (13 kb) ; I could make one 299x 2300 pixels and still be only 50k, but would probably badly violate Marys image size limits even more!. With simple graphics the the file sizes can be small and the images way larger than folks monitors will show; without auto risizing or scrolling. <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/PNdesktop/desktopcrop14.gif?t=1169327759"><BR><BR> You want you possible clients to be excited about your work instead of having to scroll, doing downloads and updates. They may have more important things to do like a wedding!

<i>On java.com 's download area its called "java software" NINE TIMES; and the word "script" is not even mentioned.</i>

<br /><br />

Again, that's because Javascript has nothing to do with Java software. Other than a similarity in name, they are very different technologies for different purposes. Java.com has nothing whatsoever to do with Javascript.

<br /><br />

Javascript is an ECMA standard for client-side scripting functionality in browsers. Every modern browser supports core Javascript natively, no downloads or installation required.

<br /><br />

Java is a programming and run-time environment for building software applications - nothing to do with client-side web development. It is possible to include Java in html pages by embedding applets, but that practice has all but died out nowadays because easier and more lightweight technologies like Flash have largely replaced it for comparable web applications.

<br /><br />

Please educate yourself about these technologies before advising others about them.