Finally somebody speaks up against the resolution nonsense on the web

[Doom9]

Check this out: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060720
With a native resolution of 2560x1600 I cannot agree more.. sure I can keep multiple windows at 1024x open side by side and sometimes this is even desireable, but I prefer having a say in the matter on how I view a website.

[sysKin]

I switched to a beautiful 1920x1200 just a week ago ^_^

However, to my surprise, I actually have a different opinion. You see, the very first thing I learnt with this screen is not to use fullscreen windows at all. I don't run anything widescreen anymore.

Because of that, I actually found the "800x600 designed" websites quite convenient. More than at 1280x960 I used before O_o.

I'm surprised too :)

[GodofaGap]

My screen is just 1400x1050 and even I hardly use any app at full screen (not even video players).

[Doom9]

I got a 23" 1920x1200 screen back in fall 2003.. it isn't quite big enough for me to not run apps in fullscreen mode. Even with the 30 incher, it depends on the site.. there are those that look alright in fullscreen, and those that look weird (this forum being one.. ). 800x600 is way too small though.. it fills such a small percentage of my screen. I'm typing this in a browser that takes up about 1/3rd of my screen real-estate, and I guess the main reason for that is because the posting bit is so darned small (and I haven't figured out how to make it larger).

But you wouldn't run Visual Studio not in full-screen, would you? Finally you can have the properties tab open all the time without it cutting into the code..

[FlimsyFeet]

Here at work I have a 19" monitor at 1280x1024.

But I only have the browser window sized at about 800 x 400 (so if I'm surfing the net whne I should be working it's not as obvious!).

At that size, I'm missing most of the links in the left hand frame on the front page (http://www.doom9.org/). (I know the answer will be - "get some work done, then"!)

[check]

While I wish I was among you screen gods - I'm sad to say I run 1152x864 on my 17" which is so old the plastic is practically rusting. I'd guess the vast majority of people would be running at 1024 (crt) or 1280x1024 (lcd), and a smallish number at 1600 (lcd again). Until more people start running in higher resolutions this will simply continue until some level of 'critical mass' is reached. In my mind this isn't a bad thing, extra resources would have to be spent making the websites work at a wider range of resolutions - moving from a fullscreen world to a windowed one seems like a far better idea.
Finally, would you really want to view a website at 1900 horizontal resolution?? What was formerly a thick block of text would turn into a single line - very strange...

[Shinigami-Sama]

I want your moni doom
I"m stuck with a 19' 1280:1024 for my PC that my roomie uses now

and my 15.4' 1280:800 laptop

but making sites fluid for large monitors is hard
though I agree there should be more options for 1600:1200 staticly, after that if you have a monitor that big you deserve to have empty space ;)

[kururu]

What really peeves me is how popular fixed-width templates are. Especially ones where 60% (i am not kidding) of the horizontal space is used by left and right bars and ads, leaving 3 centimeters for content.

And let us not forget Mac users, who have never been able to maximize their screens.

I've been spoiled screen-wise, I'm either on a dual-1280x1024 or 1920x1200.

[Mug Funky]

at work i'm on 1280x1024, LCD (native res... how old is that?), at home i'm on 1280x960, CRT (i'd never seen a CRT with a dead pixel, and it's a trinitron, too, so it also has those 2 thin black horizontal lines at 1/3 and 2/3 down the screen).

the forum fits pretty well, though horizontal space could be used a little more elegantly.

i wish i had 2 screens - cooledit/audition is gold on 2 screens.

but avisynth works pretty well on anything big enough to fit 720x576 in it...

[ssjkakaroto]

I'm with check on this one ;)
I also have a 17" monitor (a Sony Triniton from 1997) at home running @1152x864 and at work I have a 14" @800x600 :p
So even those websites that are made for 1024x768 resolutions are most of the time inconvenient for me.
When you live in a third world country getting decent computer stuff is hard and expensive :(

[int 21h]

Interestingly enough, Jakob Nielsen's (a fairly well respected expert on web usability), latest column is about screen resolution and what resolution you should design for:

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

[Mug Funky]

hmmm. nielsen had much more good points back in the early win95 days. now he's a bit rusty. his site looks boring, the text is too big and should be in columns to avoid reading across long lines. good font choice though, just wrong size.

and he seems to have something against colour - colours break up the grey masses of information-heavy pages, not to mention extending the page's identity beyond the title banner. i look at jakob's page and it could just be any old blog.

[foxyshadis]

Well, he does say that his site design is intentionally bad, like web pages that suck, though I agree the preaching could be a little less ugly. I still find everything he writes on relevant (if only because it used to be my industry), because he aims more toward internal corporate design and management, than consumer-focused sites, even if I don't always agree with his tastes and conclusions. Other gurus have more useful info for less corporate sites.

[Shinigami-Sama]

well it hurts my eyes, so that is pretty bad, either way, he does have some points but it is pretty outdated, more and more people I know are getting 19+ inch monis, I was just looking at some 1600:1200 20 inchers

[smok3]

well, html is simply resolution dependant, there is no way to get around it (when we talk about browsers.)

[foxyshadis]

Well, you're an enthusiast and most of the people you'd (and I'd) know would be enthusiasts, Shini. Most workplaces are different and usually have yesterday's technology, plus they have (some) different design needs than the internet as a whole. If you're designing for enthusiasts, then of course you should design for anything from a 17 to a 30 incher. (And, if the enthusiast sites I frequent are any indication, good taste should be checked at the door.)

[Shinigami-Sama]

Well I like to beable to read large ammounts of text at a time, so large monis are best for that, duals would be best, but I"ve found that most apps I've attempted to use with dual-monis doesnt work to well. However I will agree I'm an enthusiast, and at my school (BCIT) we had some new 17inch veiwsonics at 1280:960 @ 72hz

anyways this is a tad off track <.<

[mike_lee]

1920X1200 on a 24" LCD I run my browser at oh hell I don't know, 70%? This leaves the right side of the monitor for other programs or video windows