Web Page Dimensions?

[AndyM]

Surely your site should resize to the screen? Who wants to have a screen where either the content doesn't fit, or you have two great big gaps on either side? Either way the designer is not catering for the viewer and in my opionion isn't doing their job properly.

Further to this consideration, if the site is designed properly and uses CSS, the viewer can choose to change the font size for example without messing up the format of the page. If you look at the WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) - home page) they are very clear "Use CSS for layout and style where possible."; in doing so, the user will have some control over how they view your site, otherwise it could be unreadable. Just visit a few of your favourite sites using Firefox, press ctrl + a few times and see what happens, probably an undreadable mess.

The only exception I would concur with would be that 640x480 is probably not worth bothering with, but then again, if its designed right then your site will fit anyway.

[RSimpson]

Well as far as the BBC are concerned I don't think they're too bothered about losing visitors over screen resolution as the main reasons for visiting their site is the content (the news and weather etc). The fact they like to treat some of their audience badly isn't exactly a new thing when you realize their channels generally broadcast crap like eastenders and they charge us a "tv tax" whether we watch their rubbish or not

From a small business perspective what would be the point in alienating ANY users? One user who could be visiting from a library (known for having shitty old monitors) might have their credit card in their hand ready to buy from you but end up getting annoyed when they have to scroll sideways to read some of your content. When you're running a small business and cashflow is tight you generally can't afford to turn away business because your web designer decided that 14% of your potential web business wasn't worth having.

Sorry I rambled on a bit there!


Cheers,
Robert

[Ardesco]

It's all about knowing your market. Some target groups will use a 800 * 600 res while some target groups will use a 1280 * 768.

Design your site for your target group and keep them happy, who cares if a couple of random visitors who are not going to use your site anyway have to scroll a bit?

[wheelybird]

Hmm. There's a convergence of laptops and phones to produce either phones with larger resolutions, or small mobile browsing devices like sub-notebooks, and these devices will be lucky to have a resolution higher than 640x480.
I myself use a Zaurus with a 640x480 resolution, and then there's all the iPhones and whatnot.
So I would always keep in mind that a growing number of people are going to be accessing sites in lower resolutions.
As you say, if you design your site to be size agnostic, then it's not a problem. If you absolutely, definitely need a minimum width for some strange reason, then 800x600 is still a good target as it will require the least scrolling on smaller resolutions.
Naturally don't fix it to that width, but allow it to dynamically resize otherwise all the people with their massive monitors will just see your site as a cute little thumbnail.

Originally Posted by AndyM

The only exception I would concur with would be that 640x480 is probably not worth bothering with, but then again, if its designed right then your site will fit anyway.

[wheelybird]

Originally Posted by Ardesco

It's all about knowing your market. Some target groups will use a 800 * 600 res while some target groups will use a 1280 * 768.

Design your site for your target group and keep them happy, who cares if a couple of random visitors who are not going to use your site anyway have to scroll a bit?

This seems a bit callous. What if one of the people that was turned away from your site was a potentially large client that you've lost because he happens to use some unexpected resolution to browse at. And then you're also assuming that people access your site with their browser maximised.

Reasoning like this will also get you to create websites entirely in Flash, because most people have Flash installed, or code sites that only work in IE.

It makes more sense to develop sites that will be viewable in any resolution on any platform. It encourages good coding and design principles, and will save a lot of hassle when Microsoft release yet another version of their browser that's not backwards-compatible with their proprietary standards.

[AndyM]

Originally Posted by wheelybird

There's a convergence of laptops and phones ... or small mobile browsing devices ... and these devices will be lucky to have a resolution higher than 640x480.

Yes this is true, but as I said ealier ....

Originally Posted by AndyM

As for mobiles, well that’s a whole different kettle of fish. I have done a lot of work on this and ended up detecting the browser type from the request and then guessing what content to return. This is relatively straightforward in ASP.Net and our website is written using this method. By extending some of the ASP controls we have content dynamically generated to fit the screen, whether it’s a phone at 40x90, Palm 160x160, 384x512 or a PC resolution 800x600 and upwards.

So really you should make your site fluid and capable of detecting browser typical dimensions.

Rgds
Andy

[Ardesco]

Originally Posted by wheelybird

This seems a bit callous. What if one of the people that was turned away from your site was a potentially large client that you've lost because he happens to use some unexpected resolution to browse at. And then you're also assuming that people access your site with their browser maximised.

Reasoning like this will also get you to create websites entirely in Flash, because most people have Flash installed, or code sites that only work in IE.

It makes more sense to develop sites that will be viewable in any resolution on any platform. It encourages good coding and design principles, and will save a lot of hassle when Microsoft release yet another version of their browser that's not backwards-compatible with their proprietary standards.

Maybe so, but if my target market is 20-25 year old young males who play games online all of the time using their £3,000 gaming rigs that run their games in a native resolution of 1900 * 1200 with everything turned on I can pretty much assume that a 1280 * 768 site is not going to cause any isues. Do I care if a couple of grannies with a 640 * 480 resolutions come along? No because they are not going to use the site anyway.

As I stated before it is about knowing your target market and what they are going to be using. It would be very unusual for a big player in your target market to not be using the same sort of specs as everybody else so the chances of you loosing out on that big sell are virtually non-existent.

If your target market is everyone and their dog then you need to make your site usable on smaller resolutions.

As for mobile browsing, I would personally suggest you have a site specifically designed for the mobile market, a lot of site that are written or 800 * 600 still don't render properly in mobile browsers, if you are going to support them do it properly.

I'm not suggesting you make Flash sites (ack) or only IE sites (euurrggh) but is it really a big issue for somebody to maximise their browser? It only takes one click and would not prevent me from looking at a site I cam across.