Page width question

[Richard]

I have a Grand Canyon hiking website ( http://www.allhikers.com ) with all
pages set to 760 pixels wide in an attempt to accommodate the majority of
people. I recently viewed another hiking site (
http://www.thebeckoning.com/explorations/hikes/backpacking/grandcanyon2007/grandcanyon2007-day1.html
) that had his pages set to over 1000 pixels wide. Obviously that allowed
him to display a series of pictures larger than I can on one line. Does
anyone know what the current statistics show for the percentage of people
still using 800 x 600 display resolution. My intent has always been to not
force people to scroll when viewing my site. However, if the number of users
at 800 x 600 is now fairly low, I may switch my next trip report to a wider
page.

 

[Mike Mueller]

* I have a website with pages set to 760 pixels wide.
* I recently viewed another site that had his pages set to over 1000 pixels
wide.
* Obviously that allowed him to display a series of pictures larger than I
can.
* Does anyone know what the current statistics show for the percentage of
people
* still using 800 x 600 display resolution.
* My intent has always been to not force people to scroll when viewing my
site.
* However, if the number of users at 800 x 600 is now fairly low, I may
switch
* my next trip report to a wider page.
-------------------------------------------------

Richard,
It is not what the statistics say, it is what the sites viewers are using.
Set up an account with Google Analytics and after a month or so check and
see what the results show. I operate a few sites with different audiences
and there is a large variety of what they are using- I have one site that is
only 6% for 800x screens, and another that is over 30%.

 

[Ronx]

Best place to look for resolution statistics is your own web site stats
- if your host provides them. However, screen resolution does not tell
you the size of the browser portal - many users have sidebars open that
reduces the available width of the browser to 800px or less, even with
screens at 1024x768 resolution (which is the most common), and others
use a small window anyway so that other applications can be seen on
screen along with the browser.
Best advice is to set the page size to suit your audience - and your
audience is in the web site statistics.

Stats can be found at http://thecounter.com (click on global stats),
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp , and
http://www.echoecho.com - but these are based on visitors to those
sites, those visitors may be "specialised" rather than "average"
(whatever that means ), and take note of the dates the stats apply to.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

I agree with Mike and Ronx that it's best to know and accommodate your own
user demographic. Google Analytics has been excellent for that purpose for
me. For what it's worth, in my stats, 97% of users are at 1024x768 or
greater. Times have changed...

It's often pointed out that people don't always maximize the browser window,
and of course that's true. My personal opinion: I'm not obligated to provide
a perfect viewing experience for people with lower resolutions who don't
maximize their window. They have a choice. Many major web sites will be too
wide for a window about 800px wide, so it seems a poor choice to make.

Again, this is just the way I see it, and everyone has to make his own
decisions on it. I don't like making 97% of my viewers see an awkwardly
small, narrow web page, in order that the other 3% don't have to scroll
horizontally. After all, it won't kill them!

"Flexible" pages are problematic to make look well at varying widths, and
the CSS for maximum width isn't ready for prime time yet (the browsers
aren't ready). So as for me, I currently make pages that are about 970px
wide.

 

[Stefan B Rusynko]

Caution with those stats
All they measure is Viewer Screen resolution - Not Browser ViewPort
- tablet PCs in Portrait mode are reported reversed
- larger screens does not automatically translate into larger view port
- many uses with larger screens are running several aps (IM, gadgets, etc) or even several browser windows
So the browser viewport is usually never the same as the max screen width


--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
_____________________________________________


|I agree with Mike and Ronx that it's best to know and accommodate your own
| user demographic. Google Analytics has been excellent for that purpose for
| me. For what it's worth, in my stats, 97% of users are at 1024x768 or
| greater. Times have changed...
|
| It's often pointed out that people don't always maximize the browser window,
| and of course that's true. My personal opinion: I'm not obligated to provide
| a perfect viewing experience for people with lower resolutions who don't
| maximize their window. They have a choice. Many major web sites will be too
| wide for a window about 800px wide, so it seems a poor choice to make.
|
| Again, this is just the way I see it, and everyone has to make his own
| decisions on it. I don't like making 97% of my viewers see an awkwardly
| small, narrow web page, in order that the other 3% don't have to scroll
| horizontally. After all, it won't kill them!
|
| "Flexible" pages are problematic to make look well at varying widths, and
| the CSS for maximum width isn't ready for prime time yet (the browsers
| aren't ready). So as for me, I currently make pages that are about 970px
| wide.
|
|
| --
| Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
| Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
| Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
| --
|
| | >I have a Grand Canyon hiking website ( http://www.allhikers.com ) with all
| > pages set to 760 pixels wide in an attempt to accommodate the majority of
| > people. I recently viewed another hiking site (
| > http://www.thebeckoning.com/explorations/hikes/backpacking/grandcanyon2007/grandcanyon2007-day1.html
| > ) that had his pages set to over 1000 pixels wide. Obviously that allowed
| > him to display a series of pictures larger than I can on one line. Does
| > anyone know what the current statistics show for the percentage of people
| > still using 800 x 600 display resolution. My intent has always been to
| > not
| > force people to scroll when viewing my site. However, if the number of
| > users
| > at 800 x 600 is now fairly low, I may switch my next trip report to a
| > wider
| > page.
| > --
| > Richard M. Perry
|
|

 

[P@tty Ayers]

Oy, I know, and I addressed that in my post.


--
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
--

Caution with those stats
All they measure is Viewer Screen resolution - Not Browser ViewPort
- tablet PCs in Portrait mode are reported reversed
- larger screens does not automatically translate into larger view port
- many uses with larger screens are running several aps (IM, gadgets, etc)
or even several browser windows
So the browser viewport is usually never the same as the max screen width


--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
_____________________________________________


|I agree with Mike and Ronx that it's best to know and accommodate your
own
| user demographic. Google Analytics has been excellent for that purpose
for
| me. For what it's worth, in my stats, 97% of users are at 1024x768 or
| greater. Times have changed...
|
| It's often pointed out that people don't always maximize the browser
window,
| and of course that's true. My personal opinion: I'm not obligated to
provide
| a perfect viewing experience for people with lower resolutions who don't
| maximize their window. They have a choice. Many major web sites will be
too
| wide for a window about 800px wide, so it seems a poor choice to make.
|
| Again, this is just the way I see it, and everyone has to make his own
| decisions on it. I don't like making 97% of my viewers see an awkwardly
| small, narrow web page, in order that the other 3% don't have to scroll
| horizontally. After all, it won't kill them!
|
| "Flexible" pages are problematic to make look well at varying widths,
and
| the CSS for maximum width isn't ready for prime time yet (the browsers
| aren't ready). So as for me, I currently make pages that are about 970px
| wide.
|
|
| --
| Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
| Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
| Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
| --
|
| | >I have a Grand Canyon hiking website ( http://www.allhikers.com ) with
all
| > pages set to 760 pixels wide in an attempt to accommodate the majority
of
| > people. I recently viewed another hiking site (
| >
http://www.thebeckoning.com/explorations/hikes/backpacking/grandcanyon2007/grandcanyon2007-day1.html
| > ) that had his pages set to over 1000 pixels wide. Obviously that
allowed
| > him to display a series of pictures larger than I can on one line.
Does
| > anyone know what the current statistics show for the percentage of
people
| > still using 800 x 600 display resolution. My intent has always been
to
| > not
| > force people to scroll when viewing my site. However, if the number
of
| > users
| > at 800 x 600 is now fairly low, I may switch my next trip report to a
| > wider
| > page.
| > --
| > Richard M. Perry
|
|