What Resolution Will You Design for in 2007?
Over at 9rules Notes, there is an interesting discussion about the resolution that many in the design community design for. I believe you will find that more and more people are using 1024×768 as their base resolution as it allows for a bit more freedom with regards to how to display content. Of course this also means that more and more people will come up with reasons to clutter designs that don’t need anymore elements added to them.
So do you plan on changing what resolutions you design for in 2007 or is it just going to be the same old thing all over again?
None. Or all. Resolution independence will be here very soon.
Designers, get your vector skillz ready.
By Jeff Croft on January 2, 2007 4:51 pm
Be interested to hear why you believe that Croftie.
By Scrivs on January 2, 2007 5:47 pm
Left a note. I have to say, I’m disappointed at how many people still think that screen resolution is a relevant data source when the wildcard of window sizes throws the whole thing into moot.
By Anton on January 2, 2007 5:48 pm
I will shift design mainly to 1024×768 from 800×600 depending ont he project based on the majority (based on Web metrics). Underlaying all my projects is adherance to Web Standards and the use of XHTML and CSS 2+ enabling the customisation of content for various media and resolutions on the fly.
Web Standards/Semantic XHTML/CSS future-proof your choice of deisgn resolution as changing it is a simple modification in your layout CSS.
By iDonny on January 2, 2007 5:52 pm
I’ve been designing for 1024×1280. Usually all of my designs are 800px or wider. If I’m designing a minimalistic site, such as my new stevencampbell.org, then I’ll make the width smaller. Of course, if a client wants me to design for 800×600, I won’t go against that. ;)
By Steven Campbell on January 2, 2007 5:58 pm
It is about the users - I usually base the design around the stats I can find about the site. Why design a site for 800*600 when the majority of you users use 1280×1024?
By Andrew on January 2, 2007 8:12 pm
Well, I guess I am behind the times, and still going for somewhere between 700 and 800. But I suppose that will be changing soon.
As for other resolutions, I just need to get back to making templates. I haven’t been doing it, and it is about time to start up again. Alright, happy new year everybody!
By J David on January 2, 2007 8:55 pm
As a 12″ Powerbook user (1024×768 resolution) who is extremely happy about the 12″ form factor when lugging it around, I get annoyed by sites that assume people always run browsers maximized. I like to keep mine around 600-700 px wide, any wider than that and the lines get illegible anyways.
Webpages are text, text is usually tall, not wide. So it makes sense to shape the window like that, I think. I’d rather have a lot of lines of the actual content on the screen than the alternative: see few lines but a lot of sidebars filled with secondary content. (Because filling my entire screen with just a browser window, just so I can comfortably read your site simply won’t happen…)
By Marten Veldthuis on January 2, 2007 8:57 pm
I’m with Jeff Croft. Sooner rather than later, our information design is going to need to work on device ranging from dual 30-inch Apple monitors to a cell phone display. Information wants to be free - and free of device dependence.
By Dale Cruse on January 2, 2007 10:01 pm
The Wii’s standard resolution is 640 by 480. Phones operate at all sorts. 10-20% of people are on 800 by 600. The rest are spread over a huge range. Designing for any resolution just doesn’t make any sense any more.
Just because 99% of a site’s users have the same resolution doesn’t mean all other resolutions can be ignored - it means there’s a problem with the site that needs to be fixed.
By Dave Child on January 3, 2007 2:00 am
To be a bit less dramatic about it, I’m not totally convinced that we’ll be designing with resolution-independence in mind in 2007 — but definitely in the next couple of years, anyway. It’s almost a certainly that Leopard will have a resolution-independent user interface, and the word on the street is that Microsoft is working on it, too.
And really, it just makes sense. A damn good percentage of the stuff on the web (type, Flash) is already vector. Another large percentage (form widgets, scroll widgets, etc.) will be vectorized automatically when operating systems go resolution-independent. Another large percentage (illustration, line art, etc) could easily be vector with a bit of work from designers. And the last bit (photos and other images that must be bitmaps) is the tricky part. But we all know David Hyatt and the WebKit team are working on it, so there’s no reason to think the Mozilla and IE teams aren’t, as well.
Resolution-independence will be here eventually, and I think we’ll start to at least see movement towards it in 2007. To give you a slightly more straightforward answer, though: most of the sites I’ve been building lately are targeted at window sizes with a minimum of 1024px horizontally. I expect that to continue through 2007, and I wouldn’t anticipate that I’d go larger than that except on sites with a very niche, targeted audience that I can count on having wider windows.
Can’t say I really agree with this. If 99% of my visitors can view my site without having to scroll horizontally, and the other 1% can view access my site just fine, albeit with some scrolling, I think I’ve done my job.
The idea that having scrollbars is an accessibility problem is absurd (I know you didn’t say it was an accessibility problem, Dave, but many do). Accessibility is just that — the ability to access a site. Users with minority configurations having to scroll a bit is no different than users with poor vision having to increase the size of text in their browser.
Accessibility means access for all. It doesn’t mean exactly the same experience for all.
By Jeff Croft on January 3, 2007 2:32 am
I’m going to repeat pretty much what Anton said above, since apparently noone noticed: The screen resolution is not relevant, the size of the browsers viewport is.
Sadly, very few statistics packages give you that relevant metric (the viewport width). People are continually concluding that 1024×768 being the most widely used screen resolution means most people will get no scrollbars with a design width of close to 1000 pixels.
This might be true, but you have to realize that around 20% (according to my numbers) of the people who use a 1024×768 resolution does not use a full width browser window. For 1280×1024 over 35% doesn’t use the full width of their screen for their browser.
Make your design 994 pixels wide (ie optimized for a resolution of 1024×768) and 20% of your visitors will get a horizontal scrollbar. Make it 770 pixels wide and only 3% will be getting the dreaded scrollbar. You decide which number you prefer - as everything else in web design, it’s a tradeoff.
For numbers and further details, please read the following, and don’t let me catch you saying screen resolution is interesting ever again ;)
* Browser size does matter - Actual numbers
* Actual Browser Sizes
* The ridiculous discussion about monitor sizes and screen resolutions
* The importance of window-width
* Design for Browser Size — Not Screen Size
By Jakob S on January 3, 2007 5:58 am
Overall, I will be sticking with a 770px (8×6 res) width on the content sections of sites. I’m not doing this necessarily for resolution size. For one, I have a decent resolution on my desktop (1280×1024) and I hate sites that span the width of my browser. Not necessarily design elements but content elements. Give me a two column layout that spans the width of my browser and there’s like 40-50 words per line (more or less) in the content. Plain out, I’m not going to read it and there are many who won’t. Also, as it’s been mentioned, you cannot assume that visitors will be browsing with a maximized window.
By Vernon on January 3, 2007 11:58 am
[…] Over on Wisdump the question has been presented What Resolution Will You Design for in 2007?. […]
By What Resolution Will You Design for in 2007? by Vernon Kesner on January 3, 2007 12:05 pm
“I’m going to repeat pretty much what Anton said above, since apparently noone noticed.”
No one noticed? I was very careful to say “window size” and not “screen resolution” in my post. I certainly noticed.
I think you might be arguing semantics here. Everyone knows that it’s window size that matters, not screen resolution. But, “screen resolution” is the common vernacular, so that’s what people say. They don’t (usually) literally mean the number of pixels on a user’s screen — they mean the number of pixels in the viewpoint. In this context, screen resolution means the same thing as window size.
By Jeff Croft on January 3, 2007 12:12 pm
I’m still designing liquid, sometimes setting the min-width down for 800×600, sometimes using no min-width at all. I still don’t get the big deal about fixed-width sites.
By Montoya on January 3, 2007 1:57 pm
@Jeff - I disagree.
I think most designers do refer to the number of pixels on the screen. Take a good hard look at the context of most arguments (not just here, but anywhere this topic comes up): “who uses 800×600 anymore?”, “I have my display set to 1280×1024″, or “my mom’s computer even has 1024 on it”, and so on.
The majority of designers are making width decisions based on what they think people’s screen resolutions are set to as well as what they themselves use.
My point stands: Until people can clear that nonsense out of their heads, we’ll never come close to really answering this question.
By Anton on January 3, 2007 2:35 pm
Anton is right. Jakob S., doubly so. Thanks for those links, Jakob.
Jeff, talking about “window size” rather than “screen resolution” is not just a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of accuracy.
By Jeremy Keith on January 4, 2007 8:38 am
I’ll be designing largely for 1024 with the main content area prioritised to be readable on 800, even if it requires a scroll bar.
I like Jeff’s initial comment that resolution will eventually no longer be relevant. That sounds like fun.
By Jamie on January 4, 2007 11:39 am
> Jeff, talking about “window size†rather than “screen resolution†is not just a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of accuracy.
I understand — I’m just saying that I think most web designers (at least quality ones) really mean “window size” or “viewport size” when they say “screen resolution.” I believe their intent is usually right, it’s just the words that aren’t.
Part of the problem, though, is that viewport size is much more of a moving target than screen resolution. Whereas there are like five screen resolutions that are regularly used, a viewport can be any size.
It’s like if I were a furniture maker building sofas, I would want to make sure every sofa I built could reasonably fit into 95% of the living rooms in the world. That’s reasonable. But, there’s really no way I could make sure that still fit in the living room after all o the other furniture the buyer has. I have no way of knowing exactly how much room he/she will have. But, if I make it such that it will it in the room, then the user WILL be able to use that sofa, even if it means rearranging some other stuff.
I’m in total agreement that it’s more important to be looking at viewport sizes than screen sizes — but accounting for everyone’s possible personal preference in browser window size and placement is a bit unreasonable, whereas accounting for five or six screen resolutions is not.
By Jeff Croft on January 4, 2007 3:01 pm
Use an appropriate resolution. When the content dictates use 1024 or liquid.
Despite ballooning resolutions, personally I say, cater to the lowest common denominator and design for 800 x 600. A site optimized for 800 x 600 still looks good on the biggest monitors, and in my experience people with huge monitors don’t surf with their browsers maximized.
By Zach Katkin on January 4, 2007 10:56 pm
Speaking as someone who uses 1280×1024, but doesn’t have his browser maximised, I’d certainly agree that relying on resolution stats is a bad way to go about it.
Resolution independence is a nice idea, but usually involves some form of scripting and can cause problems with design.
Me, I still design for 800×600 (not so bothers by the length), and I have noticed that, considering I don’t want to overwhelm users with too much on screen, and that line length affects readability, that width is actually not too bad for content and a side bar.
Now, if everyone can stop using GIGANTIC headers so I have to scroll just to start reading the content, we’ll be all good.
By Lee on January 5, 2007 1:52 pm
[…] wisdump has a recent post asking which resolution designers will be aiming at during 2007. I run a fansite for a popular MMOG that has a game is not very expensive in processing power but has a minimum resolution of 1024×768. This site i run received from 05/12/2006 and 05/01/2007 about 440 visits. From these 440 visits only 2.73%(12) visits were under 1024×768, 46.14(203) were 1024×768. Although the population would by nature be using screen resolutions over 1024×768 the numbers are quite clear that even in this segment lower screen resolutions should be considered. […]
By Resolution for 2007 at medecau on January 5, 2007 8:52 pm
[…] Last week we had an interesting discussion on what resolution you will design for in 2007 and the general consensus was that we are moving to bigger resolutions. However, with more and more devices becoming web-enabled it seems that they aren’t moving along with us. I know many of us have spent so much time waiting for the opportunity for the majority of users to move past 800×600 that it can be frustrating seeing a whole new batch start to use 640×480 again, but that is what is happening. […]
By Do You Design For Non-Desktops/Laptops? » Wisdump on January 9, 2007 2:53 pm
I still believe in 800×600 and I will tell you why. I always make sure my monitors are at the highest res possible. My laptops are all at 1900, and my Mac has a 21″ widescreen monitor with everything as small as possible (I use the mac for Pro Tools music production, so I need the space LOL).
But here is why I will be sticking to 80×600. The way content displays on the web at that resolution, is perfect for the human eye. It makes a page easy to scan, forces you (and the client) to not clutter the page (we all know how clients always try to do that), and overall just looks nicest. Unless it’s a news site, a blog, or some online app or portal. If you need more room than the 8×6 window allows you, you may be doing something wrong (consult your information architect at that point).
I will leave you with this example, a newspaper. Newspapers are designed to make readers follow the paper a certain way. They are designed to fit a certain amount of leadin storied on the front page, and the inside pages are also designed a certain way for users. Maybe in 20 years (yes, I bet papers will still be around then) humans will on average have much longer arms, so why won’t they double the size of newspapers to accomodate people with longer arms? Because the papers will become a nightmare to read at that point. “Imagine that, now we can double the amount of stories in the paper” only people may miss a lot since paragraph lines will be longer therefore harder to scan, etc.
By Christian on January 10, 2007 10:09 am
I’m with the guys that say it depends on your site’s demographic/users. For my blog I’ll be easily aiming for 1024×768 but for my company’s site I still can’t really pull away from 800×600 as a lot of it’s users are in the medical field and don’t really use the internet to its full potential - I mean I find most of them don’t even have flash installed at all let alone would know how up up their screen res from Dell’s/HP’s/Gateway’s defaults.
It depends on your users totally - and the mfg’s of basic computers pushing out 1024 instead of 800 - that way normal users would be just fine for us… :)
By Chuck Reynolds on January 10, 2007 1:42 pm
I am with Jeff Croft, build for resolution independence. You should also build for pixel density independence. Most people are buying new laptops high resolution screens with density of 150+ pixels per inch, which is quiet different from the 72-96 pixels per inch of your typical desktop machine. What is a 10pt font on your monitor is suddenly 6pt on a new laptop.
You can build sites now that are density independent, everything in ems, using flash for vector graphics, bitmaps are the difficult bit and then scale the website by user preferences or by javascript according to browser window width.
Alternatively you can wait till page zooming appears in FF and Safari. It already exists and works well in Opera and not so well in IE7.
By Nick Cowie on January 10, 2007 11:04 pm
Interesting discussion. I have always designed for 800×600, but recently I was asked to consider 1024×768. I had always been against anything bigger than 800×600 but maybe it’s time to change. Most people now have bigger monitors and unless they have the inclination to change their resolution it is generally set to 1024×768 as standard.
A client also asked me why her site didn’t stretch across the screen like Amazon did? My answer is always the same, I referred her to the bbc.co.uk and ft.com, there is a reason that these sites are set to 800×600 and they are prime examples of compliant standards sites that have to cater to a wide audience - yet still have to be fresh, interesting and easy to use. I am against designing fluid sites as by their nature I am unable to control what the user sees, am I a control freak? possibly.
By TiaLush on February 7, 2007 6:57 am
The annoying thing about web designers is that they have large screens and assume that everyone else wants their work spread over half the wall as well.
Fact is, most surfers are not designers and have different habits surfing the web. Statistics show that around 10% of a sites visitors have a screen resolution of 800×600. As a designer, you may not care for those guys, since obviously they are not aesthetically inclined and are unable to appreciate your work.
But think: Anyone trying to make money from a website will get nightmares, if you tell him that he is losing as much as 10% of his customers, because they can’t see the add-to-shopping-cart-button. What insane braindamaged idea is that? Losing 10% of his revenues? Your client (the company paying you to design the website that will get them paying customers) will not only fire you but tell everyone they know that you are stupid as butter. He is fighting to increase his sales by two percent compared to last year, and you want to lose him ten percent?
For many clients (and their websites) the question is not about “most people”, but about “as many customers as possible”.
By Ciuin on March 9, 2007 3:54 pm
I love the comments posted here. Lots of good points. At factor360.com, my designers are routinely asking for more web real estate. They point to the latest stats by w3schools.com showing only 14% of users are still at 800×600.
But like a few of you have mentioned, that is screen size, not browser. For 2007, I will hold my ground at around 780px unless the client insists or the target audience allows us to go higher.
By Dennis on April 29, 2007 12:30 am
We’re doing great with our current resolution. So I think we will stick with what we’re using now. If during our survey we’re downgrading, then it’s time to change to another one.
By portraits art on October 15, 2007 1:03 am
First, design for content area, of course! Screen Res/Viewport sizes are misleading. 955 x 550 is the viewport I’m basing content size on per Nielsen, Baekdal, et al.
By Dave on October 30, 2007 10:20 am