I am building a new website and my monitor is set to 1280x1024, the site looks fine on mine, but on my bro's set at 1024x768 it looks poor. I have resized it at the moment but now it looks a bit odd on mine. What is the most popular size at the moment?

1280x1024

1200x1074

1074x768

800x600

Other size

Mine's 1280x1024....I think this is a standard resolution. If you edit the poll from 1280x1074, I'll add my vote accordingly.

Cheers,

Please take the 1280x1024 as the correct one, i cant seem to edit the actual poll. Thanks for pointing out my mistake

I am building a new website and my monitor is set to 1280x1024, the site looks fine on mine, but on my bro's set at 1024x768 it looks poor. I have resized it at the moment but now it looks a bit odd on mine.

You could just do what I've done on my work's site, and put 'this site is designed for 1024x768 resolution' in small type at the bottom of the screen. In a similar vein, I use the History bar in IE which means that the banner adverts at the top of the screen partially obscure the car pictures. Makes very little difference to me, but it goes to show just how many different variations of screen size there can be...

Thanks for that and yes i have put that on already. I have at present resized it to the smaller res, but would like to work at the larger size as it makes it easier for me to do. It is the Ulceby bengals one i am talking about, which is in my sig.

The only suggestion I can think of is to have smaller thumbnails of your pussy pictures (can I say that on here?!) linked to a page with a full size pic and nothing else (esp. no frames). That way the browser will resize the picture automatically to make the best use of the available space... Other than that, not sure how to make the best use of space on a picture-base website :confused:

Hi

My TFT 15" is apparently 800x600 according to the screen's own menu. I don't seem to be able to change it, so to be able to monitor the difference. Should I be able to? as I note above it says that sites can be shown as "best viewed ...." - is it just too bad if that's not one's set resolution? :confused:

Thanks

Mo

Have voted for other. I currently run at 2048*1536 (I use a 20" monitor for work and 19" at home). Not your usual res but good for multiple program use.

WRT the setting up of a website always assume the lowest common denominator, i.e. 800*600. This way anyone who is new to computers, doesn't know how to change resolution etc can visualise your site without having to scroll horizontally as well as vertically.

Hope that helps. Plus check browser compatibility, IE, Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox etc etc...... as most people tend to be at least a browser version behind in my experience.

You can change res by right clicking on your desktop, then go to settings, you will see a slider there to change the res. You should be able to run 1074x768 on a 15" ok.

Have voted for other. I currently run at 2048*1536 (I use a 20" monitor for work and 19" at home). Not your usual res but good for multiple program use.

Wow - that's high. I thought my 1400x1050 was big!!

WRT the setting up of a website always assume the lowest common denominator' date=' i.e. 800*600. This way anyone who is new to computers, doesn't know how to change resolution etc can visualise your site without having to scroll horizontally as well as vertically.

Hope that helps. Plus check browser compatibility, IE, Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox etc etc...... as most people tend to be at least a browser version behind in my experience. [/quote']

I agree with all of that - the "this site best viewed at..." is always a good bet too.

I've edited your poll for you so; all the 1074s have been changed to 1024.

Oh and I voted 1280x1024 as well..

At work I use 1280x1024, at home I have a 16:9 monitor that uses 1280x768. One of my laptops is 1024x768, the other is 800x480. My HTPC is running into a 42" plasma TV at a res of 1920x1080 via DVI.

You can change res by right clicking on your desktop, then go to settings, you will see a slider there to change the res. You should be able to run 1074x768 on a 15" ok.

Hi

Feedback - If it's of any help...

Changed res to 1074x768 (by start/settings/control panel/display/settings.) What it did was simply to reduce the size of the windows, i.e. giving much desktop surround (so no point IMO) and reversal back caused my windows to go into a "letterbox" format - i.e. full width, but not full depth of screen. Rather than "resizing and file-exiting (rather than X close) each window", I've done a system-restore. Hello again - back as I was on 800x600. Oh well.

I'm wondering however if this might explain another problem that many people seem to have, that is, when taking a print of a web site, about 15% on the RH-side is chopped off. I've Googled to many forums about this seemingly common problem, but no potential solutions seem to have worked for people (nor me). The only way of overcoming this problem seems to be if a "printer friendly" version option is offered.

I post this mainly as grist-to-the-mill, but of course I'm always open to receive handy tips

Regards

Mo

I agree with all of that - the "this site best viewed at..." is always a good bet too.

But a very unfriendly one too - you force someone to change their resolution just to see your site.

Most websites are still designed for 800x600 (or for variable width) and for good reason.

But a very unfriendly one too - you force someone to change their resolution just to see your site.

Most websites are still designed for 800x600 (or for variable width) and for good reason.

No - i agree, I just meant you should tell people.

You cannot assume people are running any more than 1024x768 for website design, and 800x600 is much safer. Here's some stats from a site I run - accumulated over the last 2 years:

1024x768 6264 50.98%

800x600 4655 37.89%

1280x1024 746 6.07%

1152x864 265 2.15%

Other 188 1.53%

640x480 112 0.91%

1600x1200 55 0.44%

OK so it's only a small site and doesn't have that many hits but I think the sample is big enough to give you an idea. If Col has similar stats for Briskoda that might help you too...

Notice how tiny the percentage of people running anything higher than 1024x768 is!

I'm wondering however if this might explain another problem that many people seem to have' date=' that is, when taking a print of a web site, about 15% on the RH-side is chopped off. I've Googled to many forums about this seemingly common problem, but no potential solutions seem to have worked for people (nor me). The only way of overcoming this problem seems to be if a "printer friendly" version option is offered.

[/quote']

Not being funny, but have you tried printing landscape? If a website uses frames (i.e. you can scroll some bits, but other bits stay still) you can just print the bit you're interested in by going File > Print Preview and selecting the frame you want.

Sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs...

I am going to leave it as i have it, set for 1024x768 as i am not filling the pages completely. It should still be ok on 800x600 i think, may check it out later. Thanks for the input guys and cheers Tavia for editing the poll

Not being funny' date=' but have you tried printing landscape? If a website uses frames (i.e. you can scroll some bits, but other bits stay still) you can just print the bit you're interested in by going File > Print Preview and selecting the frame you want.

Sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs...[/quote']

Frames are not very popular these days, mainly for SEO reasons.

Not being funny' date=' but have you tried printing landscape? If a website uses frames (i.e. you can scroll some bits, but other bits stay still) you can just print the bit you're interested in by going File > Print Preview and selecting the frame you want.

Sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs...[/quote']

Hi - Many thanks

Answer = yes and no: Yes means that in landscape, more white paper, but still chopped off (even with specific area selected) as per Google findings.

No means Print preview? I.e. if I have already selected the area I want, then Preview shows it, and my Preview is not a change-able screen AFAIK. I will look again, sorry, no time now.

In principle though, it is not all sites - hence some must be written differently and hence the relevance to the original post.

As to sucking eggs, no problem IMO - few people know how to such them all! Phew, I'm glad I'm not posting this in the Cafe

Thanks

Mo

Where's the 3200x1200 option?

Yes, I'm a tart. Have 2x 20.1"TFT panels on an extended desktop, each running at 1600x1200

But not as tarty as either of the two Colins that live here :P

My laptop (D600) runs at 1400x1050 which is very comfortable.

You people must have damn good eyesight or you'll be getting awful headaches!

Frames are not very popular these days, mainly for SEO reasons.

SEO?

As to headaches, no problem with small print - life in a blur is far more preferable IMO especially for those of we long-sighted folks for whom lasic surgery is not an option.

Dunno about 4-eyes as a derogatory term - sometimes 4 pairs of specs at the same time might be a better definition of the term these days. I'm not sure, Nick, if that is what you meant, but web designers who have 20/20 vision could at least try to accommodate those of us who don't. :rant:

LOL

Mo

PS Altering "View/text size" has an effect on perpaps 1 in 10 sites in my experience.

SEO=Search Engine Optimisation.

I'm running at 1280x1024 on a 21" CRT. and it's just about comfortable. Someone said they were running 1600 on a 20" TFT (admittedly that's about the same or bigger as a 21" CRT) but I couldn't do that. The fonts would just be too small unless I bumped the font size up. Can't see the point straining one's eyes to see tiny print, that's all