What is Digg?286 Comments
- Nexus6, on 10/12/2007, -30/+206Em, no. Why cripple your site with a small resolution to accomodate a small minority of users. 13% of traffic is coming from Germany, should I translate my sites into German?
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -48/+173800x600 view screens can go to hell.
- dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -17/+75you don't need to cripple your site, just use percentages instead of static sizes, that way it can support 800x600 through 1920x1200 and always fill a fair portion of the screen.
- kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -15/+70Well if you're in Germany...it probably couldn't hurt.
And I agree that designers shouldn't have to keep designing for the smallest denominator of users. At some point innovation forces change. The same arguments arise regarding flash player penetration. Some sites will publish back to a previous player version and wait until the enough users have adopted the new player. However, the sites that publish to the newest version are the ones forcing change and subsequently the new player versions are adopted fairly rapidly.
http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html - lament, on 10/12/2007, -23/+77"you don't need to cripple your site, just use percentages instead of static sizes, that way it can support 800x600 through 1920x1200 and always fill a fair portion of the screen."
you're obviously not a designer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56It's important to remember an 800x600 user can still *use* a site that's intended for a higher resolution. It's not a barrier like language, it's a scrollbar.
- ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -25/+70The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Those 10% can squint for all I care.
- BlueLaser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49Don't forget that a new class of web browsers with resolutions even smaller than 800x600 are becoming increasingly common as more people start browsing the web with their mobile devices. If you're going to leave 800x600 (and smaller) behind on your main site, make sure you think about creating a version that can be easily accessed by your "hip" mobile users.
- djg38, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33What about poor vision, ultra-portable laptops, smart phones, or just plain preference? They're still potential customers, and catering to them usually just means a design which flows to fit whatever size screen it's in (to a limit). The problem is with some people that create non-fluid designs that are unusable at less than 1024x768 -- they're limiting themselves, and many times can't justify it.
- djg38, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Ah, but that's what fluid design is for. The very page linked by the article works at 800x600 or 1600x1200.
- Gyga, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32My sister got mad when I changed her old computer from 800. Then she got a new computer and got made when I changed it to 800. Basically she only wants the presets, and Myspace*.
*Myspace please get deleted. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -45/+70Exactly, why make my web site look correct with firefox when 90% of surfers use IE?
- Virion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28My father was the same way, he would argue with me when I adjusted his 800x600 resolution to 1024x768, but gladly used the system upstairs with 1280x1024. It really baffled me.
Of course he also thinks that enabling cookies are the devil and uninstalls programs by deleting directories (he's a bit-old fashioned, that IBM PS/1 Expert lasted so long that he made the jump from Win 3.1 right to Win XP.) - bob_the_alien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I happen to have met quite a few people that can afford very nice computers, and do own them, and can buy whatever from your site, and they are still using 800 x 600, and the reason was they didn't know how to change the resolution. Some people just don't know, until it's explained to them, after I showed them how to change to a higher resolution they where trilled, but until I was in their home, they had no idea they could even change it.
- kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -18/+41Note to potential customer:
If you're on dial-up using IE at 800X600... keep your money. - digggggg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24We should all realize that some people like to run their browsers in non-fullscreen windows. Those statistics of host resolutions tell us nothing about the real number of interest: what's the typical width people open their browser windows?
- whiskerlickins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@bluelaser
A designer that knows what they're doing will build sites to be viewable on mobile devices with alternate style sheets. - yoshihama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21The problem is that soon MS won't release patches for Win98, so that old computer in the bedroom will become a hazard on the Internet. Better to reformat it and install a lightweight Linux distro.
- jay314, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I'm running this window right now at about 800 x 500... not on an outdated display, but on a brand new widescreen laptop. Why? Because I like to have more than one window on my screen at once. I'm sure I'm not alone. Why should a website need 1280 pixels? It just stretches paragraphs into single, long lines and fills my screen with useless white background.
What people need to do is design their sites to be resolution independent. Yes, I'm aware of how hard that is, but you have to start sometime. In a few years I might be browsing your site on a 600 pixel wide portable device... and if your design can't handle that, fine. I just go someplace else. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Better yet, size your page with em instead of px.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22If your site is personal, who gives a load. Design it as you wish, its your site.
If you are designing a site for commerce, be it ad sales or selling WaHoos then be damn sure your client agrees with your "just ***** 'em" attitude.
Personally, my site that sells Upscale WaHoos works with any browser size. Just because somebody has their resolution set to 800x600 doesn't mean their money is any less valuable. - lament, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Has anyone said:
1) You should design for your audience
or
2) this W3Counter site is only tracking 974 websites and is hardly a clear representation of anything
yet? - strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -28/+44Who browses full screen these days?
- andr3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Is that 800x600 EXACTLY or "800x600 or less" as the submitter wrote? If so, couldn't this statistics be affected by mobile browsers?
Still, just because you -- the designer -- have a wide 23" display, don't think all your users do too. Don't disregard ANY of your users -- 800x600 STILL being the acceptable minimum --, or it will come back around and bite you in the ass. Be it due to stupid browsers (ie) or low resolutions...With a little effort you can cater to both of them... Don't be a lazy webdesigner. Do it right. And thank god you're not designing for the mobile web, where you have so many different browsers and inconsistencies as you have screen sizes... which are a lot.
What if one of your users browsing at 800x600 is a future employer testing your ability to cater to those resolutions? What if it's a whealthy dude browsing your e-comm site which happens to be a fan of some of your items? If he can't browse, he won't buy... - Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18In their upcoming versions, Windows and Mac OS X will be fully scalable, so that screen resolution and dpi will no longer decide the "actual" size of objects on the screen. Flash has been doing it forever, Opera does a pretty good job of re-rendering webpages into various sizes and dimensions while maintaining the format, so can't this sort of thing be built into the web standards? I really don't know, is it possible?
- Nexus6, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28I'd rather annoy the 11% by making them scroll then the majority by cramping the information into a smaller space and leaving large blank areas at the side.
- polvero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Those are global stats. Look at your own stats if you want a real measure of what to design for.
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Absolutely. While my screen resolution is set to 1600x1200, I run my browser window at about 900px wide. Truthfully, much more than 950px, and the lines become difficult to read because they are too long and your eye can't naturally follow them.
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+161280x960 is actually a "correct" ratio (falls in line properly with 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and 1600x1200)
1280x1024, though more common these days due to SGI's use of it, is actually a non-standard resolution. Do the math (Horiz / Vert) and you'll see that the "proper" ratio is met by 1280x960, not 1280x1024 - Nexus6, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26Ah, but I'm not excluding them, just not designing sites with them in mind (although I do design using width=100% rather then a specific width in pixels) Even if I did use specific widths they'd just have to scroll a bit. Ad I was originally commenting on the way dig38 phrased the article implying that web designers have to cater for a small minority.
- Gisterogue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15How many people who said "***** the 800x600 users" and similar things are professional web designers? I think this kind of attitude is pathetic, and very childish.
It is true that there are little people still using this resolution, but if you have an initial customer base, and told your Director "***** that 10% cos they are old news, lets concentrate on this 90% of people". What's more important, catering for an extra possible 10% of custom, or making your web site look that little bit more fancy and flash?
Used to be a similar story with AOL'ers. Had to have custom sites/scripts to use AOL software, but you just couldn't say "***** YOU AOL" if you wanted to seriously get some money. A lot of the time, the majority of sales came from them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14look for that number to increase as 3rd world countries get online with lower spec hardware.
also keep in mind mobile devices are going to take a bigger share of the browsing market.
also, why the hell should a webpage need to consume my entire desktop? hell ever think it's not the only thing i want to see? - thomashallock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@dark_helmet: In my dealings with CSS (and the popular browser's iterperitations of it), using percentages instead of fixed sizes is easier said than done. When you are dealing with percentages you also have to have ways of enforcing minimum / maximum widths for elements, as well as figure out how to trick the browser to understand things like 70% of (available width - 200 pixels). I don't know how to do that with CSS, and those that do know how aren't using kosher methods.
- krisper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ironically, I've found that the larger my monitor gets ( I'm currently running a 30 inch monitor at 2560X1600 resolution) the more I appreciate 800X600 friendly pages. You'd think that I'd love to see everything optimized to make full use of my monitor, but in reality, I generally have photoshop, Word, 3DS Max, Painter and a couple of miscellaneous apps open at the same time. I like to have a tiny browser window floating off to the side, and I find I rarely maximize it, and I really REALLY hate sites that maximize automatically. So, there you go - larger monitor install base may not necessarily translate into people wanting to view larger webpages.
- pokka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The problem with the assumption made in this article is that users always browse the web using maximized windows. That's ridiculous. My display is 1280x1024, but I reserve some space for IM and also allow space to see what windows are overlapping. The result is a browser window that's approx 800-950 pixels wide.
This page indicates that the *minimum* number of users you'll inconvenience with a sloppy, non-fluid design is 11%. The actual number is significantly higher. - eeepeeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The one thing that I try to keep in mind as a designer, and one of the main reasons I still design for 800x600, is that the constrained space forces you to pare down your content (as well as iconography and layout graphics) to the absolute minimum, while still maintaining your message. I find that if you're smart and selective as to the content on your page, 800x600 is more then enough space.
It's a way for me to force my clients (in a good way) to really hone their message and image, which in turn helps prevent the "kitchen sink" mentality. Clients feel like they have to overload their pages with content, instead of spending the time to both reduce clutter and properly organize content on their site. - BitwiseMcgee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15well, I don't care what resolution it is, but I HATE it when a web site assumes what res display I'm using. I like to have multiple websites viewable. Sites that are designed to be viewable at lower resolutions excel here.
Honestly, how much screen estate does a site need? If we needed that much room for a web page, fixed width sites wouldn't be all the rage. - baud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Why does everyone here seem to assume I would want my browser running at full screen? My screen might be BIGNUMxBIGNUM size, but my browser is only taking up half the screen, so I can see other stuff on the part of the screen where it isn't.
- Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Some of you guys are just assuming people at 800X600 have little $. My uncle is hella rich and he uses a ***** monitor at home. He just doesn't care about improved technology. He uses it to buy crap online and look at porn. His monitor does what he needs it to do.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9even if people aren;t using 800*600 resolution don;t assume that they have their web browser maximized, and are devoting all their screen resolution to the web browser.
I frequently brows the web with my browser NOT maximized. I hate sites that make me use a lrage browder window - wyclawek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think its an excellent point about the wide screen users not running at full-screen. I remember a colleague of mine (a designer) showing off his 30 inch Apple display, and he was so proud of the fact that he could view and compare three browsers side by side on that monitor. Each of those had an approximate width to accommodate 800px websites best. Since then, he seems to mostly browse at about that width or a little larger, but never full screen.
I think that as more and more people move to larger monitors in wide screen format, we'll see this statistic be less and less useful. It just doesn't account for how people actually size the windows. - Peat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14OS X has now pulled even with WIN98!! Way to go Steve!!
- Hayl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Some people (read: morons) run in lower res to make the fotns "appear" larger rather than running in a decent res and making the font sizes larger.
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Fluid design is not a "fix all" for the width problem. At 1600x1200, you end up with paragraphs that are stretched so wide they become difficult for the eyes to read (there are numerous studies which suggest this, I'm too lazy to pull them up for a comment on Digg).
Designing with 800x600 "in mind" is good principle. Does that mean that sites should be limiting themselves to no wider than 760px? Definitely not. One thing that might make Digg a bit better is to move the left navigation over to the right. This would allow 800x600 viewers to read the main content of the page without having to use a horizontal scroll. For 10% of users; limiting yourself is just silly. But ignoring them altogether when you can make reasonable accommodations is equally crazy. - djg38, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17It depends on what type of site it is. If you sell products and want German business, you might consider translating the site into German. You might also want to make sure the site is usable at 800x600 if you don't want to lose 11% of potential customers.
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9umm, how about instead of developing for a specific size you do your best to accomidate all resolutions?
my website uses percentages rather than pixel widths on the Div's
as far as i know, all resolutions are accounted for by doing this - Nexus6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1425% use Firefox. It's better then IE6.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Browsers should allow arbitrary render scaling. I'm not talking about font sizing, but actually increasing the de facto pixel size. This can be done by rendering to a texture and scaling it. This capability already exists with OSX and should exist with Vista. I think X can do it too with the newer extensions (Xgl certainly). You could do it in XP with some footwork. A smarter and higher quality way would simply be dynamic scaling of elements (px attribute scaling, font resizing, image scaling, etc.), but some plugins like Flash might not want to play nice and would require on-the-fly resizing. You should still favor fluid design regardless.
- kristopher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Since Digg designed their new version for 1024x768, I went and made a greasemonkey script that removed everything and then reduce the size of the window to as low as 480x320 and it'll still look good. If they hadn't made it specific to one size, I'd never have created the script that removed everything, including ads and the sidebar.
If you are interested:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4341 - spate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@strcmp, You nailed it right on the head; browsing full screen sucks. I might have a desktop resolution of 1280x960 at home and at work, but I never, ever browse fullscreen at either location.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 282 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is