Fixed width design of 1024 versus 800 pix wide

So I'm working with some colleagues on a site redesign, and have
encountered something interesting. According to Google Analytics, the
screen resolution of most of our visitors is 1024x768. The old 800x600
resolution is pretty far down on the list.

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

Thanks for any thoughts/comments!

-Chuck

In article <1166198175.666825.212490 (AT) l12g2000cwl (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
"Chuck W1CEW" <cewyattjr (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

So I'm working with some colleagues on a site redesign, and have
encountered something interesting. According to Google Analytics, the
screen resolution of most of our visitors is 1024x768. The old 800x600
resolution is pretty far down on the list.

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

Thanks for any thoughts/comments!

-Chuck

Here's my personal opinion on this. Just because I've got the real estate
available on my display, that doesn't mean I want you to hog it all. If
you design your site for a wider window, I need to devote more of my
precious screen area to your site. I've got other apps open at the same
time. Every pixel I give to you, I need to take away from some other app.

Read what Jakob Nielsen has to say about the topic...

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html

Chuck W1CEW wrote:

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

As other people have commented, fixed width isn't a good idea.

However - a design that just fits on an 800px wide display (with maximised
browser window, etc, etc) won't cause horizontal scrolling on a 1024px wide
display (same conditions).

The reverse is not true.

Chuck W1CEW wrote:

So I'm working with some colleagues on a site redesign, and have
encountered something interesting. According to Google Analytics, the
screen resolution of most of our visitors is 1024x768. The old 800x600
resolution is pretty far down on the list.

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

Thanks for any thoughts/comments!

It's never too early to change from an 800-pixel fixed-width design. Do
it now!

But why would you require my viewport to be exactly 1024 pixels? Exen if
I maximize my browser windows (which I almost never do), there's a
different amount of real estate available between my FF and IE browsers.
IE might be too small to fit your design, or FF will have me wasting a
bit of space.

Please let *me* pick the size(s) of window I want my browser to take up
(while I use potentially several other apps on my screen). You are
invited to fit your content to match the size of my viewport, whatever
that might be. Please don't make me scroll horizontally, and please
don't insist on wasting a lot of space within my browser.

Thanks for asking!

--
John
P.S. Just checked: right now my display is at 1280 x 1024. FWIW.

In article <1166198175.666825.212490 (AT) l12g2000cwl (DOT) googlegroups.com>, Chuck W1CEW writes:

So I'm working with some colleagues on a site redesign, and have
encountered something interesting. According to Google Analytics, the
screen resolution of most of our visitors is 1024x768.

I've had a 1280x1024 monitor since the mid-1990s. However, the size of
my screen is a good deal larger than the canvas of my browser. I typically
run my browser window with an aspect ratio similar to (U.S.) standard
8.5x11 paper. After you take off the browser chrome, you're left with a
canvas of only about 700x750.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Economists have correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions.

"Chuck W1CEW" <cewyattjr (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

Other posters have given good reasons not to use a fixed 1024-pixel
width, but "most fixed width" sites are probably coded without regard to
those reasons. They're generally 750 pixels or fewer in width because
more than that and the right side gets cut off in printouts.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.

Bruce Lewis wrote:

Other posters have given good reasons not to use a fixed 1024-pixel
width, but "most fixed width" sites are probably coded without regard to
those reasons. They're generally 750 pixels or fewer in width because
more than that and the right side gets cut off in printouts.

That kind of problem can easily be avoided using print stylesheets.
Works best when a design isn't an inflexible table layout, of course.

--
Berg

Chuck W1CEW wrote:

Still, seems like most fixed width sites are still 800 pixels wide or
thereabouts. Is it too soon to design toward 1024?

None of the above. Refrain from hardcoding any width, so the site can
adapt gracefully to the user's situation and preferences.

--
Dan