1024x800 the new standard?

Don't something like 30% of internet users still use 800*600 though? seems like a large proportion to be missing out when it's so easy to cater for them.

Although in the end i guess it depends on what your target audiance is. If it's something for 'computer literate' people (which in your case it is) then i doubt many, if any, will be using 800*600. If it was something more general, however, i think it would be a bad choice to make.

thats what I am saying - a 1024x800 works on any resolution 1024x800 and higher; why should you limit layouts to the lowest denominator?

www.tomshardware.com and www.cnet.com doesn't and they get a good 40k+ uniques a day I am sure.

--Tone

Originally Posted by shackbase thats what I am saying - a 1024x800 works on any resolution 1024x800 and higher; why should you limit layouts to the lowest denominator?

that's how math works....

with that logic we should all be designing in flash.

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.

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.

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

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.