What's the "standard" desktop resolution?

This may shock most of you but since I work there it's not a shocker to me, we just got a website.

The company I work for has been in business for 75 years. We have had the same name, been located in the same city/state and are in the commercial sign industry...we just got a website.

Moving on, I saw our website for the first time today. Nothing fancy, really it's nothing special but hey we have a website. At first glance my boss calls me over and asks why when he tries to print the first page it is cropping the right side and you have to scroll the page to see the right side. I take a quick glance and tell him basically it's because it was created in a 1024x768 format. Oddly enough, remember we just got a website, we run our computers in 800x600. I quickly switched the resolution to 1024x768 and BAM our website is now viewable as a full page and there is no need to scroll to the right to see the full page! I tell him that it may be a good idea to give whoever created this P.O.S., I mean our new website, to change it so it is fully viewable in 800x600 resolution.

I'm just curious as to your views or opinions on what the "average" websurfer, consumer, customer etc., desktop resolution is. The funny thing about this little "milestone" if you will, is the website designer insisted that "everyone" uses 1024x768 res. these days and we shouldn't want it changed.

:huh2:

I believe that the industry standard these days is 1024 x 768. Some places still run 800 x 600 but they are very few and far between.

I write custom software applications and and one of the first things i always ask my clients is what is the lowest resolution you want this software to be designed to run in and 90% say 1024 x 768.

I personally prefer 1920 x 1200 which is the native resolution of my Dell laptop but most people would say the icons are way too small. But i like as much landscape as i can get.

:rock:

Research shows that 1024x768 or higher is used by the majority, thats pretty ancient data though (2003). I would imagine much higher than 58% are using that resolution or higher now, mine is 1152x864.

Most native resolutions of LCD displays are 1280x1024. To give you an idea of what I mean by most, out of the ~260 LCD Monitors that Newegg sells, 201 of them are a native resolution of 1280x1024. And LCDs are becoming by far more popular and cheaper so many more will have it...

Errr.... When I briefly did web stuff, I was taught KISS.

You may want only your local customers with the best and newest technology to view it, but you are going to have folks on old 386s with CRTs, web tvs, aol tv, cell phones and folks from other areas that are limited to text only and are charged per minute for new use or KB downloaded.

Ive used 640x480 the past few years til I got my new glasses a few weeks ago. I upgraded to 1024x768. Back in dos days I would use mode 40 to put the screen in 40 collumns where stock was 80.

1024 x 768. thats what my screen is it wont go bigger i dont like when websites are biger cause i have to scrool but i guess i need new monitor

IMHO, a site should in the very least be designed to work for 800x600, since screen resolutions are most commonly 1024x768 in my experience, and when you consider the average viewport of a non-maximized browser is usually about 800x600, forcing users to enlarge their window or change screen resolution is asking a lot. Sites that absolutely *need* 1024x768 in the very minimum tread on risky ground -- especially if a viewer or customer can find what he or she wants elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if the "majority" is using a certain resolution, because it means you're leavingn others out in the cold. If a design is completely (or barely) inaccessible at low resolutions, it's the mark of poor accessibility and bad, inflexible code.

All textual content should be visible and usable at lower resolutions. For sites with complicated designs that users might try to print from, a stylesheet or seperate page for print media should be provided. Good designers strive to make content accessible, no matter what display constraints are. (Not affiliated in any way with above linked sites.)

That's pretty much what I told my boss. While I agree that most "professionals" use no less than 1024x768 there are those who still stick with 800x600. It is my feeling and many major websites use the 800x600 format is if you are using a higher res. the site is still fully viewable but may show negative, blank space on the right. What I was trying to express to my boss is that for those people/customers that use 800x600 and the webdesigner created the webiste in 1024x768 you are making it more of a hassle than it needs to be.

Just checked--I'm using 1024x768. My screen size is 14.1".

Laptop is running 1024x768, Desktop is running 1280x1024 I think..

I looked at the "research" link provided by solarflare. What was not obvious was whether the study tried to determine the monitpor resolution VS the resolution setting.

I know that my parents both retreated to 800x600 because they like the bigger icons, web page info, etc.

I agree with cobb; If you want to reach all teh possible customers you should make it so that all of them can use it. That means no flash, no active X and no java. There are times when you MIGHT need some of that, but I've never seen a business web site that needed more than straight HTML.


BTW, some professionals do more than one thing at a time, and don't fill the whole desktop with a browser, so 640x480 is still really appreciated.

Daniel

Of those website visitors that come through the front door, exactly 50.0% of them are at 1024x768.

My dad was forced to upgrade to 800x600 and later 1024x768..... if icon and text sizes bother you..... I adjusted those so they were nearly as big in that resolution as they were before thus under normal use my dad couldn't tell much difference but had the advantage of being able to use applications and websites that were 800x600 and 1024 later.

Home: 1152x864 - dare to be different

Work: 1280x1024 - native resolution of the LCD monitor

My wife and I each have 15" LCD's, both with 1024x768 native resolution. When I installed hers she wanted to run it at lower resolution. I had her compare 800x600 and 1024x768 and finally convinced her to run it at 1024x768.

At work I have an old 19" CRT monitor and run it also at 1024x768. I've thought about trying one step higher in resolution.

BTW, it seems to me that msn.com is set up for 800x600.

XP installs by default at 800x600, which should tell us that is the logical minimum (older flavors of Windows defaulted to 640x480). Even though most people don't leave it at default, it should be designed to work in a window--even CPF requires pictures to be max 800 pixels wide for that reason.

1920x1200 Dell 24 inch widescreen.

A website should be designed for 800x600 resolution as most 15" CRT users run them at this resolution. Some still run a 17" CRT at 800x600 even though both normally support 1024x768. The actual usable screen area is always less than a LCD panel of same description. Not everyone works on LCDs, especially in non-technical companies.

1024x768 is likely the most widely used native resolution currently. Most laptops, 15" LCDs, and some 17" panels.

Next native resolution would be for 17-19" panels at 1280x1024.
I run this on two 18.1" panels flanking a 20" running at 1600x1200.

I don't know too many people that run 800 x 600 these days unless they have vision problems. At least they're becoming more uncommon. Seems like 1024 x 786 is more the norm. With the price of monitors (both LCD and CRT) coming down more and more, people's desktop resolutions are going up.

Post a link to your website so we can view it.

When I created my website, http://www.BohannonBattery.com I used 1024 x 786 and did not think about it not fitting on an 800 x 600. Later I changed it so that it fits on 800 x 600 and the user does not have to scroll. I believe its aggravating to have to scroll and would not want to put anyone through this