Ask YC: What resolutioon do you design websites for? | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: What resolutioon do you design websites for?

6 pointsraheemm17 comments

I usually develop sites for 1024 x 768 resolution. But am wondering if its time to increase that baseline? What do you guys think? Thanks.

View on HN

I try to make my layouts scalable (measurements in ems) and fluid (the least fixed dimensions the better) to avoid problems. I'm pretty confident my (unreleased) site should be able to handle less and more than 1024x768 which is my resolution (if I wanted to scale down to mobile devices I'd make a version of my site specifically optimized for them).

Even though every screen I use on a daily basis runs at least 1280x1024, in general, I still tend to work off 1024x768 as my baseline.

My feeling is that - as with 800x600 - I will likely stick with 1024x768 as the baseline for a little longer than I should... Just to be sure. A site that takes up a bit to little room is less annoying that a site that takes up too much, IMO.

See here for a somewhat old but useful discussion on the topic: http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/001220.html

Then yeah, there's the whole fluid width angle too... Most of the sites I have designed are actually fluid width (useable at 800x600 and up) rather than fixed. Fixed width is something that I have only more recently started experimenting with.

Definitely depends on the audience. If you know your site/app will be used on older machines or by less tech savvy folks, it's often safer to stick with 800x600 in those cases. Otherwise, do some assessment and decide based on that.

If there's no reason to exclude people though, then you may as well include as many as you can. Older browsers (IE6 anyone?) can be cut on newer things as well if the time to test and ensure it works in them isn't worth it, but that depends on your audience again.

Then there's the accessibility question. You're not developing for users within public or govt institutions are you? ;)

1024x768 is #1, but the surprising fact is the use 1280 x whatever is now #2 (instead of 800x600)

Thank the laptop/LCD boom for that.

I mockup up all my designs at 1000 pixels wide.

I do my designs at 1000 pixels too. The horizontal scrollbars at 1000px should disappear. So in short I design based on 1024 but the max width I work on Photoshop is 1000px. Even on fluid designs, I do this.

I recently fixed up the project I was working on to work at 800X600 exactly. The reason is so that folks running at 1024X768 don't have to maximize the window. Even if they did, thanks to Google bars and Yahoo bars and tabs and bookmark bars etc. etc... the height would not be anything close to 768.

And since this is a flash app, it HAS to all fit!

Yeah, I've aimed at 800x600 for my general-focus sites. I feel sorry for the 5% of our audience that still uses it and it hasn't hurt us so much yet.

For my gaming sites, less than 1% of our visitors use 800x600 or lower.

We'd probably go with 1024 in the future for all our sites if we have a compelling design that needs it.

Our current website is comfortable at ~800 (I believe the content is 780 pixels with some elements that overflow), but the next iteration will be designed to be comfortable at ~960.

Just remember that really wide text is hard to read, and break it down into a readable column width for text, plus other elements.

I guess it's most reasonable to design for a minimum of 1000px width. Few apps/websites really need more minimum width.

P.S. yes, peple have larger screens, but it does not mean they maximize the browser window. It's especially true of Mac users.

I've started designing primarily for 1280x1024, mostly because I use 1920x1600 and 1024x768 design is so shoddy on it. Of course, most of my designs are dynamic/fluid and change size to fit the page so its not really an issue.

It's okay to design with 1024x768 in mind, but you have to also consider those who are using handheld devices, screenreaders, and don't forget the bots. Make it good for the most common, but don't let it break for the rare.

With the rise of the iPhone and other mobile/desktop browsers, this seems more important than ever.

What does everyone here think of creating a separate .mobi type site versus taking the time to make your regular site "mobile-friendly"?

To justify a parallel, separately-designed .mobi site, it takes a lot of traffic from handhelds AND serious design reasons to make the main site low-resolution-non-compliant (loreznoncom! I made up a Web 3.11 word!).

I set my browser window size to 1024x768 and I test in opera, ff, and konqueror (probably test graphic links and epiphany too). I don't worry about the height that much though.

Depends on your target audience. Generally, I am like you and develop for 1024x768.

Thanks you guys! This is helpful. loreznoncom is a pain! :)

646px. Woohoo for facebook's tiny window! :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com