1024x800 the new standard?

Yup thats what i mean, the audiance for those sites are people that atleast know something about computers. People that use 800*600 tend to be people that arn't regular computer users. So for sites such as yours i doubt many people at all will be using 800*600 so you'd get away with not catering for it

800x600 is still the standard as the majority of internet users are using it.

I wouldn't say that the majority of internet users use it - I looked in my Urchin logs and for the month of August I had an average of 12.1% use 800x600 and if you look at http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp which had the most comprehensive stats I could find, in June 2005; 25% used 800x600 and 55% 1024x800 and the rest basically higher and looking at their historical data, that 800x600 % is going down sharply.

--Tone

But your site is a computer-based site. Meaning mostly computer-literate users will be going there. and that group of people are the type who are most likely to be using 1024x768.

Really you have to tailor your site to the audience. For instance my GVH site is 1000px wide because the majority of the web users in Gungahlin are yuppie types who mostly have nice new computers that run at 1024x768.

but if you were writing a site targeted at say older-generation people who would (I'm guessing) mostly have older computers they bought in the 90's and thought they'd never need a new one again, you'd want to make it for 800x600..

I agree - which is obviously why sites like THG and cnet run larger than 800x600.

So twisting the question slightly - what would you say would be the 'breaking' point where if you looked at your stats (if it shows resolutions, such as Urchin stats); is it worth to break the 800x600 mold.

At 25% I think it would be foolish but at 15% and less I think it really is a fairly ok thing to do; this has been the worse thing about the Internet since the inception of it, designing for the lowest denominator vs embracing newer technologies.

--Tone

Originally Posted by Robson 800x600 is still the standard as the majority of internet users are using it.

Exactly.

Just because the new generations are changing what they like does not mean the older generations will jump on the bandwagon.

Its simple.

The amount that (back in the day) used 1024x768 was scarce compared to those using 800x600. There were still a good amount, but they just used 800x600 more.

Now, its the exact opposite. Imagine the numbers, but reversed. There will always be people using 800x600, but a majority of designers deal with professionals, and people who are in the market, and people who want/need a website. Those type of people don't use 800x600 (usually, i understand that is a broad statement, but i support it nevertheless) especially if you deal with businesses.

Originally Posted by sketchie But i'd like to punch the person that's still on 800x600, (can't stand it) hehe.

Why would you like to puch me?
Maybe the people that use 800x600 resolutions use it for a certain reason, anyone ever think of that? Not everyone is gifted with great eyesight, especially me. So watch your comments next time, or do you make it a habbit of hitting disabled people?

Originally Posted by Submerge Why would you like to puch me? Maybe the people that use 800x600 resolutions use it for a certain reason, anyone ever think of that? Not everyone is gifted with great eyesight, especially me. So watch your comments next time, or do you make it a habbit of hitting disabled people?

That is a valid point - and one that should be considered.

My thing is this; 800x600 is too limiting with my site layout (3 columns) - too squished up - but if its a flowing design then it doesnt matter (it will fit 800x600 as well as 1600x1280) - but with a flowing design it looks too stretched out at 1600x1280 - so what should I do? i could add a sensor for it to be set at 1024x800 if res is > than 800x600 but thats two template sets x 5 sites to keep track of.

There are people that use 640x400 I'm sure but I don't see too much concern about their needs - surely their numbers are vastly less but the point still stands, if you up the ante; because the times have changed you will inconvenience some people but maybe that will be the push for them to go on a higher res/bigger monitors.

--Tone

check these out... samples at approx. res (760 wide for 800 and 980 wide for 1024).

http://www.hardwareranking.com/index800x600.php

http://www.hardwareranking.com/index1024x800.php

www.hardwareranking.com - 100% flowing - current look (only diff if you are at >1024 res.)

Now look at it at 1600x1280 - Most of you will have to scroll but you can get a feel how it would look like by how stretched it is. http://www.hardwareranking.com/index1600x1280.php

what do you think?

--Tone