Screen Resolution on you monitor?
Jul 15th, 2006, 09:37 AM
#1
Original Poster
Screen Resolution on you monitor?
Doing some work on a web site and was wondering.
What size monitor do you have and what resolution do you have it set at.
I have a new 19" Dell Ultrasharp and have it set at 1024 x 768.
Thanks.
What size monitor do you have and what resolution do you have it set at.
I have a new 19" Dell Ultrasharp and have it set at 1024 x 768.
Thanks.
Jul 15th, 2006, 10:00 AM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed - unless you're going only for a spcific high tech audience you have to assume a large number of people who have inexpensive hardware that is at least 3/4 years old - and may well have dial up.
Although my Mac is 3 years old I bought a bunch of extra memory (a gig) and resolution is 1280 X 854 - but most people don't spend this much on home computers - I did only because I had to handle massive ppt presentations from work. And I got the mid screen (15"
because the bigger one just gets too heavy to trek all over the country with.
Although my Mac is 3 years old I bought a bunch of extra memory (a gig) and resolution is 1280 X 854 - but most people don't spend this much on home computers - I did only because I had to handle massive ppt presentations from work. And I got the mid screen (15"
because the bigger one just gets too heavy to trek all over the country with.
Jul 15th, 2006, 10:09 AM
#4
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Web surfers today have a resolution of 1024x768 pixels. The second most common resolution is 800x600. Most of the other resolutions are far behind and can be ignored. You should design pages that will fit comfortably on 800x600 or so if you want to accommodate everyone, or 1024x768 if you don't mind irritating a portion of your audience. Never design pages for a <i>specific</i> resolution.
It is not necessary to restrict colors because essentially everyone now has at least 16-bit color (65,536 colors), and a great many have at least 24- or 32-bit color. The old notion of "Web-safe colors" is obsolete and can be forgotten.
Most people use Internet Explorer, but you should not design for any specific browser. Instead, design for a browser that handles standard HTML. The most common browsers today all interpret standard HTML correctly. Internet Explorer represents about 80% of Web surfers, Firefox represents about 12%, and Safari represents 4%.
About 92% of Web servers run Windows, 6% run Mac OS, and the rest run something else.
It is not necessary to restrict colors because essentially everyone now has at least 16-bit color (65,536 colors), and a great many have at least 24- or 32-bit color. The old notion of "Web-safe colors" is obsolete and can be forgotten.
Most people use Internet Explorer, but you should not design for any specific browser. Instead, design for a browser that handles standard HTML. The most common browsers today all interpret standard HTML correctly. Internet Explorer represents about 80% of Web surfers, Firefox represents about 12%, and Safari represents 4%.
About 92% of Web servers run Windows, 6% run Mac OS, and the rest run something else.
Jul 15th, 2006, 10:56 AM
#6
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast majority of surfers use dial-up connections. To send them 24 or 32 bits for every pixel in an image is not doing them a favor. There is no advantage to more than 16 bits of color depth anyway, because 99.9% of people can't discern the difference.
The fact that their equipment can handle it is not the issue.
The fact that their equipment can handle it is not the issue.
Jul 15th, 2006, 11:22 AM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must respectfully disagree with Robespierre. I have over 40 websites running, and the percentage of users on 800x600 or under is now around 15%. Further, the number of those users on dialup is now under 10%. So while I make sure that the sites work for everybody (except people on version 4 browsers in some cases)I do optimize for 1024x768 on a high speed connection.
Jul 15th, 2006, 12:44 PM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe, the simple reason most people (even the computer illiterates) get or have DSL now is because it's cheaper than Dial-Up. With your DSL, everything is included for about 25€ /month. Unlimited surfing, all the hardware needed, VOIP adapters for your ordinary phones and national phone calls at no extra cost...
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:00 PM
#9
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hadn't looked at the stats lately, but according to w3.org, the number of users at 1024x768 and up is 74% - which means that you're snubbing a quarter of your prospective audience if your content requires that resolution.
I don't have any current connection speed stats, but I don't imagine PeoplePC and EarthLink are hyping their broadband service on TV every five minutes because they want to convert that last ten percent of dialup users.
What a particular web site records is irrelevant, because its content might be turning away users - who then don't get counted.
I don't have any current connection speed stats, but I don't imagine PeoplePC and EarthLink are hyping their broadband service on TV every five minutes because they want to convert that last ten percent of dialup users.
What a particular web site records is irrelevant, because its content might be turning away users - who then don't get counted.
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:06 PM
#10
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't imagine PeoplePC and EarthLink are hyping their broadband service on TV every five minutes because they want to convert that last ten percent of dialup users"
Of course they aren't. In the same way as banks don't target their advertisments at people who don't have bank accounts, and car manufacturers aren't targeting people who can't drive.
If any website is 'optimised' for particular settings, it strongly suggests you're not following the basic principles of good design, and you're not making a fully-accessible page. The true test isn't whether your page can be understood at 800x600 (which FWIW is the minimum resolution of Windows XP), but whether it can be understood and used through Lynx.
Of course they aren't. In the same way as banks don't target their advertisments at people who don't have bank accounts, and car manufacturers aren't targeting people who can't drive.
If any website is 'optimised' for particular settings, it strongly suggests you're not following the basic principles of good design, and you're not making a fully-accessible page. The true test isn't whether your page can be understood at 800x600 (which FWIW is the minimum resolution of Windows XP), but whether it can be understood and used through Lynx.
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:22 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the three PCs I have sitting here, one is on 1280X1024, the other two are on 1024x768.
Logs from my websites show about the same stats as johng. I don't have a particular opinion on connection speed, as I feel it depends on the purpose of the website. High content sites would usually have the need for faster loads, while a site that highlighted design or photos would be expected to take longer.
However, I do think that the resolution issue as importantly a percentage matter as an accessibility one. This isn't the same as catering software code to older technology. Many people have their resolution set to 800X600 due to visual impairment. To me then, the 800x600 isn't just about being behind the times, but about access to those who don't have a choice. So, I write to that. But I don't particularly care for the approach of building that 800 width table in the middle of the screen and leaving the big empty margin on either or both sides. I try to use relative nested tables with a minimum width of 800 on the outermost table (I use a 1 byte clear image, set to width=800 or whatever, to force the minimum), but will expand to fill the space on wider resolutions (using table width=XX%). Just some ideas I've found handy.
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:42 PM
#12
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree about Lynx - it isn't really necessary to cripple a web site to make it accessible to a vanishingly small percentage of users. But making it accessible to <u>all</u> of the remaining 99%+ of users <i>is</i> a goal worth striving towards.
I don't "optimize" for any resolution - but I very consciously do avoid anything that will bog down the user or prevent the majority from playing. A lot of people, for example, don't trust Javascript because of something they (mis)heard at the office. So I don't require it, because I can usually get the same functionality with straight HTML. Cookies are always optional, because many users run with them disabled and I don't want to turn that group away. I <i>insist</i> that my developers compose content over a modem (it's in their contract) because I don't want my sites to turn into MSN, which seems to assume an ethernet connection between the server and client.
If you want to maximize revenues, you aim at the middle of the demographic bell curve - that's where the integral of area under the curve is optimum.
Oh, and I'm using 1280x768 on a 42" plasma display.
I don't "optimize" for any resolution - but I very consciously do avoid anything that will bog down the user or prevent the majority from playing. A lot of people, for example, don't trust Javascript because of something they (mis)heard at the office. So I don't require it, because I can usually get the same functionality with straight HTML. Cookies are always optional, because many users run with them disabled and I don't want to turn that group away. I <i>insist</i> that my developers compose content over a modem (it's in their contract) because I don't want my sites to turn into MSN, which seems to assume an ethernet connection between the server and client.
If you want to maximize revenues, you aim at the middle of the demographic bell curve - that's where the integral of area under the curve is optimum.
Oh, and I'm using 1280x768 on a 42" plasma display.
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:42 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also depends on who your target web audience is. If you're trying to sell something to techies or the affluent, who cares about those running 800x600 on a dialup? In fact, you want to activately discourage those people to even visit your site.
But if you're trying to target the poor, the old and the poorly educated, then it's the opposite.
But if you're trying to target the poor, the old and the poorly educated, then it's the opposite.
Jul 15th, 2006, 01:53 PM
#15
So if you are running your screen at 800 x 600 you are poor, old or ignorant ???
I believe this assumption may be based on US internet use, and while that may be fine if this is your target audience, then fine. I believe that for emerging internet markets it may not be the case.
Many parts of the world do not have the infrastructure for cheap, broadband connections.
I believe this assumption may be based on US internet use, and while that may be fine if this is your target audience, then fine. I believe that for emerging internet markets it may not be the case.
Many parts of the world do not have the infrastructure for cheap, broadband connections.
Jul 15th, 2006, 02:02 PM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought. This is a USA based website about travelling in Europe. People here can afford to burn several K per year on travel.
Is this the demographic you are building your website for?
We are much more likely to have newer equipment than the average population.
Is this the demographic you are building your website for?
We are much more likely to have newer equipment than the average population.
Jul 15th, 2006, 02:12 PM
#17
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
willit - You can go PC all you want, but
1) I never said EVERYBODY who uses 800x600 with a dialup is poor or old or poorly educated. Please read my post again. You said it, I didn't.
2) Won't you agree that if the OP is trying sell something to the poor, old and poorly educated, then he/she shouldn't use anything that requires a high resolution and long download time?
1) I never said EVERYBODY who uses 800x600 with a dialup is poor or old or poorly educated. Please read my post again. You said it, I didn't.
2) Won't you agree that if the OP is trying sell something to the poor, old and poorly educated, then he/she shouldn't use anything that requires a high resolution and long download time?
Jul 15th, 2006, 02:20 PM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi logos999
> 92% of Web servers run Windows
???<
Actually, it's only 91.764%, but 92 is close enough for government work.
Did you think that Gates was worth $52,000,000,000 and Steve Jobs was worth 2,300,000,000 because everyone used OS2?
> 92% of Web servers run Windows
???<
Actually, it's only 91.764%, but 92 is close enough for government work.
Did you think that Gates was worth $52,000,000,000 and Steve Jobs was worth 2,300,000,000 because everyone used OS2?
Jul 15th, 2006, 03:03 PM
#19
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are you people getting this stuff? According to http://www.securityspace.com/s_surve...606/index.html, Microsoft servers run 21% of the world's servers.
Apache has almost all of the rest. I suppose it's possible that some of the Apache servers are running under Windows Server, but the overwhelming choice is Linux.
Apache has almost all of the rest. I suppose it's possible that some of the Apache servers are running under Windows Server, but the overwhelming choice is Linux.
