Hello to all.

I am trying to design a site that works well with many people. I like the ideas of fixed designs to place what I want where I want it.

But fluid might mess stuff up, and maybe hard to keep images working right.

So I was wondering if a 960px fixed width would make a site look big in a high res monitor and also decent in a smaller res monitor.

Just looking for some feedback.

Colochris

800px wide is safe and I think around 1000px is ok now as most new Pc's standard RES is above 1000px

It really depends on your target audience. Do you have logs of visitors to your site so far or similar sites that can tell you what their screen res is?

I am just lost on what is a great design? I think Myspace is a fixed width, and it gets huge amount of people. So I am a bit confused.

i use the size you are asking about now. I seldom use a fluid design, as I personally don't like them.

If you are concerned about the size, you can always put a disclaimer... "this site is best viewed at xxx resolution" or something similar.

my $0.02!

i would still cater for those at 800x600 (i.e. 760 px wide max) unless your server logs show otherwise i.e. hardly anyone using 800x600 or thereabouts - or at least if you have to have a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600 then at least make sure users don't have to scroll to any important content.

' "If you are concerned about the size, you can always put a disclaimer... "this site is best viewed at xxx resolution" or something similar. '

that's just ignorant: you might as well go back to the bad old days of "this site best viewed in IE", and variations on that theme

I think "ignorant" might have been a little harsh!

now my feelings are hurt. I'm used to being called that by people i know, but strangers?

lol

didn't mean it to be that harsh lol

If the stats are to be believed only about 20% is using a resolution smaller than 1020x768. I have gone with around 960. Whatever it takes to make it work in FF and IE.

A fixed width will keep it from breaking, they will just have to scroll.

I am fairly sure that LadynRed says she still uses 800x. Maybe she will add to these posts.

"only about 20%"
can you imagine many businesses that would risk losing up to 20% of their potential custom?
one of the main peeves of users is and - and always has been - horizontal scrolling. it's your job as a designer to make the best designed site you can - both visually and functionally.

don't forget as well that those browsing at high res often don't have their browsers maximised and it might not even reach 1000px wide. sure they can resize their browser but why make them??

i guess it should not be a problem.. it'll look nicer..

Originally Posted by rick22

i guess it should not be a problem.. it'll look nicer..

well it won't if you're browsing at less than 1000px

can you imagine many businesses that would risk losing up to 20% of their potential custom?

Those type of businesses usually also have the funds to dish out for resolution-specific web design.

960 is ok, it'll stay in a 1024px resolution allowing space for the scroll bar

if you think someone with an 800 x 600 resolution might visit your site you could consider making it smaller, but I don't think so many are still using 800 x 600 today

I work at around 850px-900px. A happy medium imho because if you go too small, it looks a dot on some moniters, and too big it just looks messy and clunky - definatly what companies don't want. On the majority of sites, I've had 1 or 2 visitors on 800x600 out of 3,000-4,000 hits, so if my maths is correct thats 0.025% of users. - I may be just be lucky, but thats the way things are going these days!

If you want to be sure, go to your client, give them the truthful facts (i.e do your research first based on what screen res's that particular site is currently getting) and be completly honest...just ask them. At the end of the day its there site and most know thier own market and maybe even what type of technology thier market might use. (and i'm telling you from experiance, that if your client goes to someone, shows them the website on a different moniter to what they normally use and it doesn't work right (horizonal scroll bar etc) then your client will feel a fool, and you might feel there wrath and have to redo the site FOC. But if they got asked piror to the site and was asked, you might fall softly)

Great posts. But how many really do not maximize there screens? I dont want to see my desktop and so I go as big as I can. But maybe some still like smaller windows.

Originally Posted by jbladeus

Those type of businesses usually also have the funds to dish out for resolution-specific web design.

and what, the ones that don't have the funds CAN afford to lose customers??

to the OP: you asked if it's stupid to design for 960 px. IMHO it is stupid, unless your server stats show otherwise...

is it frustrating to not be able to easily use all that screen real estate? yep it sure is, but as a designer you need to with the limitations of the medium and meet it with either a fluid/liquid design (possibly with some margins ) or go with a fixed layout that will accommodate as many users as possible.

it might not bother you or some of the other posters on this forum but it sure as hell will bother some of your users

colochris: if you have a big screen/high ers you can run your browser, DW, IM, text editor whatever side-by-side, hence not needing your browser fullscreen

there are still those using 800x600 and even those few (or relatively many) are worth designing for: why would you knowingly make it difficult for anyone to use the site??

also while i agree that constraining your site to fit 800px on a wide monitor may look a little lost, i would imagine that those with big monitors/high res are
a) used to this anyway
b) maybe reduce their browser width to accomodate this anyway

also have you considered the width of text columns on a high res display?! when the line length goes much beyond around 25 or so words it impacts readability (think newspaper columns) and to see long rows of text spanning a wide screen at high res isn't attractive nor is it highly usable.

i'm surprised no-one else has chipped in on this thread on the side of 800px inclusion?!

Originally Posted by davemies

"only about 20%"
can you imagine many businesses that would risk losing up to 20% of their potential custom?

Some industries would be foolish to do so; others can assume anybody who would pay their fees probably has a nice display.

Originally Posted by colochris

Great posts. But how many really do not maximize there screens? I dont want to see my desktop and so I go as big as I can. But maybe some still like smaller windows.

Photoshop gets the full screen, but Firefox doesn't. Most sites don't look good maximized, and this lets me do other things with the rest of my screen. Using a wide screen, it gets to stretch out top to bottom, but only gets about half sizedways.

960px is fine to say at least 98% of your visitors will be viewing at 1024*768.

That said, you should design it with relative width, using 96em (given 1em = 10px through body{font-size: 62.5%;}).

"960px is fine to say at least 98% of your visitors will be viewing at 1024*768."

where do you get that from then?!

Sorry, that was the stats for the browsers visiting my website. The 2% was my screen, my mothers and a friends.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html

The sites I visit most often are liquid layout, relative sizing or have designed it at 980px width, and it looks just fine on my res.

Horizontal scrolling never hurt anybody. I don't know why people were so against it. A lot of websites are cropping up that only have horizontal scrolling.