How do you fix your width?
It’s seems like whenever I create a fixed-width design, I automatically set it to 960px. This is no accident- after all, as it’s stated on the 960 Grid System site:
All modern monitors support at least 1024 × 768 pixel resolution. 960 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 32, 40, 48, 60, 64, 80, 96, 120, 160, 192, 240, 320 and 480. This makes it a highly flexible base number to work with.
The problem, of course, with going with a fixed-width of 960 is that it’s not very nice to the people still using 800 x 600 resolutions. And, like it or not, there are people who refuse to move up to 1024 x 768- no matter how new or modern their monitors may be. My father-in-law is one.
Then I checked Hobo’s updated screen monitor resolutions, and they’re reporting that among the 124,727 visits their site had in the past three months, only 1.55% are using 800 x 600. The problem is that 1.55% is 1,684 visitors.
Now finding that out makes me feel a bit like a jerk. 1.55% sounds small, but over a thousand six hundred people is something. By fixing my width at 960, I’m serving them up a design that they won’t see in its entirety even if they have their browser window on full screen (and many don’t). Essentially, I’m forcing them to scroll to the right- something I never, ever want to do.
Now, I’m not denouncing 960px layouts- indeed, I’ll continue using them, but maybe I’ll stop and think more often about who the website’s visitors are. What age group am I designing for? Are they more likely to be on older monitors?
I’m interested in hearing from you about what fixed-width sizes you use in your design.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
OK, how many people visiting your website are able to read the content in the language they need (not English)?
Are you going to invest the time and expense of catering to that crowd as well?
What percentage of people are able to afford your services or products? Are you offering something for everyone (ok, maybe not this website, but those with commerce in mind).
My point is, there are always ends of the bell curve that we can’t service, for cost and effort reasons. Is the extra cost going to bring in extra revenue to offset that cost? My thinking is no, probably not, when looking at the low end of the bell curve.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
I fly w/ the “under 800px” mode — mainly because I work on a big screen indeed but the “working areas” (= windows from web apps/browsers to mail and editors ) are never fullscreen. I think that reflects my choosen max. width of around 780px to 800px in my web design. even sometimes it’s much less: around 560px to 640px.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
1,684 sounds like a lot, but in reality that number may be an inaccurate figure. The term “visits” can mean that a handful of people surfed a single site several times a day for three months… Does that number account for developers running browser tests and remove those from the stats? For 1.55% it’s hardly worth making the remaining 98.5% of the users suffer for such a small percentage. I know I didn’t spend 2k on my 30″ display to view tiny websites.
No, I am not saying to tell those users to take a flying leap, and they don’t count. But I have a better idea. I am going out on a limb here and I am going to guess that the majority of that 1.55% user base is older and possibly not able to see to well. Hence the reason for sticking at 800×600 resolution. They just cannot see well! So why not offer them a “low vision” version of your site? One that is high contrast, large fonts, and simplified to a single column with a simplified navigation. If you created your site using css, this should be a piece of cake using an alternate stylesheet and a tiny bit of javascript.
Personally I think it’s the best of both worlds! How Say Ye?
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Agree with the other commenters. By catering to the extremes, you compromise the experience of the vast majority of your visitors. There are times when compromising is absolutely the WRONG thing to do.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
I agree with Mark, by trying to create a fully usable interface for that 1,55%, others will suffer. You can’t please all the visitors.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Mike says: “My point is, there are always ends of the bell curve that we can’t service, for cost and effort reasons. Is the extra cost going to bring in extra revenue to offset that cost? My thinking is no, probably not, when looking at the low end of the bell curve.”
Extremely well said. Design, meet business.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Go elastic.
For some of my sites, 800×600 visitors are 9 % of the total and I do think it’s a lot.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
@ Mark:
Do you do websites mainly for your own screen(s)? or do you do websites for people w/o the need to know their habits of using soft- and hardware?
If you only know their hardware dependent resolution it does not tell you how wide they open their app windows. And on a first look at the Hobo article they talk about the hardware resolution.
Just for the record: I do/read/interact w/ websites on a dual-display set-up — 2 x 24″ displays, one horizontal (1200 x 1920), on vertical (1920 x 1200).
@Janko & @ Brian:
Hmmm, I don’t think that visitors w/ running a display resolution or window size “900/ 1000/1900/whatever+” will “suffer” from a smaller 700 or 800 wide website … BUT the 1.55% vistors w/ small screens can’t see the complete width (well, at least without interaction like scrolling sideways).
Besides that: working w/ more whitespace on the left and right is in IMHO a plus.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
@Yoram, My point was that technology is moving forward, and most people want newer technology, and larger screens, etc. As developers, we have to adapt and deliver content in such a way that make people happy to use our sites.
It’s for the same reason I do not design websites for smaller than average screens, that I do not design for myself. I run a resolution of 2560×1600 and I know that I am not the norm. I spend my time designing for the largest population, not the lowest common denominator. However, that does not mean I forget them all together. In fact I urge you to re-read what I said earlier, however I will paraphrase it again here. If small screens or age is a factor, I will include alternate stylesheets for these users. Likewise, I have added extra hidden features (easter eggs) to sites that can support the super sized resolutions.
If you want to develop sites for 800×600 resolutions then by all means go ahead. There is a 1.55% niche market there for you.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Most large web sites have already moved to 1024X768.
Try looking at Amazon in 800X600. If the worlds largest online retailer has moved on and has still remained successful, then chances are the 800X600 people are already used to scrolling.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
@Mark, I’ll give you an example: If you go to a bookstore you’ll find books from small sizes up to very large sizes, it’s not that you couldn’t do a big book — the question is if you should, and therefore the content, the usability and the design should dictate the size — not the possibilty that you have enough space/room.
Another one: if you have a big desktop (not a virtual one, a real one) you automatically uses big size papers? A larger desktop doesn’t ask for a larger writing/sketching pad … and btw. my desktop is huge: 3 by 1.5 meters and I rarelly use writing/sketching pads larger than 21 by 15 centimeters, well ok: standard print size is A4 (21 x 29.7 cm).
Generally speaking: It’s questionable that you should if you could — bigger is not (always) better
@Stacy, Amazon is in no way a “good” example; that they ignore smaller sized windows/displays does not say they are in a positively leading position … and that the people are happy/unhappy with it: you don’t know — they buy at Amazon that’s all you know. And for sure: the people don’t like scrolling at all — but they do, and they won’t stop if they have to scroll.
And there are more smaller sized screens we have to deal with in the not so distant future: iPhones, Netbooks (eg. eepc), Android based mobile phones, Blackberrys, Palms, etc. — and you want to deal w/ it with browser switches, javascript and multiple stylesheets? Maybe we have to, we’ll see.
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
I think it depends on the audience…people using 800×600 monitors most likely fit in a specific demographic. My guess is they are older and not all that computer savvy.
If you are building a site that targets these types of people, then by all means design for them. However, most users are using more modern monitors and they will appreciate the extra space for content.
There is a limit to this however…when everyone is using 1680×1050 or larger, it will be tougher to design for that because that is SOOOO Much space. Think of a shopping cart where the “Add to Cart” button is a float right…the user would have to move about 10 inches with their mouse to get there. I bet that would decrease sales.
David
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
My new decision (of course depending of the scenario):
- Go elastic or fluid
- Max-width: 1080px
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
I spent a long time using 780 to accommodate the 800 x 600 users, and even did so when there were still some 640 holdouts.
Now that table design has gone by the wayside I design sites that are either 960 for content but with header and footer elements that stretch and align.
As Ramon just pointed out, fluid is the best choice now if you can find a customer that wants to go the extra mile.