# Web Design Page Size



## MotoskinGraphix (Apr 28, 2006)

Just wondering what most people have set as the resolution of their monitors? Assuming you are going to print a screen image and the largest image printable is around 648pxls. how wide are your typical web pages. I have seen 723 up to around 940. Just wondering if there is a standard?


----------



## TeeMinus (Jan 10, 2008)

1900x1200

When I design a site, though, I try to design for either 800x600 or 1024x768. While, thanks to the widespread adoption of LCDs with high native resolutions, most people now will run a more proper resolution (1280x1024 or better), the truth is there are a LOT of holdovers with ancient CRTs that don't grasp the value of higher resolution and plug along at 800x600. It's gotten much, much better lately so designing for 1024x768 is perfectly reasonable. If you're using CSS properly, you should be able to get your design to be liquid enough to scale up or down, so that it doesn't look cramped to people running proper resolutions.


----------



## e_kalman (Jun 8, 2007)

800x600 is standard, although i use 900 for a special view, which fits perfectly on a 12 inch screen, laptop standard (at least the less expensive ones) 940 as far as I know would be too wide, and you would have a horisontal scroll bar, which is a terrible idea. if I saw a site with horz. bar I would just walk away. 


even though my monitor is 3360x1050


----------



## sharps (Nov 14, 2007)

750px by 550px (adjustable). This allows for padding on right and left column and if you use with css design the columns will shrink or grow with window readjustment and keep the content centered.


----------



## Cloud9 Design (Aug 29, 2007)

TeeMinus said:


> 1900x1200
> 
> When I design a site, though, I try to design for either 800x600 or 1024x768. While, thanks to the widespread adoption of LCDs with high native resolutions, most people now will run a more proper resolution (1280x1024 or better), the truth is there are a LOT of holdovers with ancient CRTs that don't grasp the value of higher resolution and plug along at 800x600. It's gotten much, much better lately so designing for 1024x768 is perfectly reasonable. If you're using CSS properly, you should be able to get your design to be liquid enough to scale up or down, so that it doesn't look cramped to people running proper resolutions.


what is the code to make a site liquid with css. i'm new to web deisgn & t-shirt buiz, too. self taught on everything. i need to make liquid layouts for 2 of my clients..thanks!


----------



## TeeMinus (Jan 10, 2008)

Cloud9 Design said:


> what is the code to make a site liquid with css. i'm new to web deisgn & t-shirt buiz, too. self taught on everything. i need to make liquid layouts for 2 of my clients..thanks!


There's no one line or one way to do it; generally you make a Wrapper DIV, set your margins and min/max widths, then work similarly with your sectional DIVs.

The best thing to do is look at a lot of sites that are laid out how you like them, look at how they're doing it in the source & style sheets, and do *tutorials, tutorials, tutorials, tutorials!*


----------



## Lynn168 (Feb 10, 2008)

According to my stats, most visitors (35%) have 1024x768 and 20% have 1440x900. Only 2.6% use 800x600.

I'm to lazy to do fluid layouts, so I usually make it between 800-850px wide.


----------



## jjohnson (Feb 11, 2008)

All the deisgns I do will be in the 800x600 range... though yes the standard has increased to 1024 I'm just a little old school I guess. I also prefer non-fluid sites for sales just because they "force" everyone to see the same thing, for me it's a lot easier to design a fixed size design than thinking through all the configurations of an adjustable width design.


----------



## The T Shirt Man (Aug 29, 2006)

most people probably use 1024x768 BUT are "most" people the ones who are browsing at work/school? I say that because i dont, and i know lots of people who use much bigger resolutions at home. Its probably the standard these days, 800x600 is old and not really used. 
I used to make sites 770 in width which i have seen some sites still do (in the old days of dreamweaver if you set the table to 100% and then convert it to pixels in 800x600 thats what it was). You could also use a table and set it 100% so it streches.


----------



## prometheus (Oct 19, 2006)

I usually go for 800 in width.


----------



## Duran (Jul 23, 2007)

I know this is a old topic but instead of starting a new one, Id just piggyback on this one..

First time designing a web page. Im using photoshop for the design.

In 2011... should I still go at 800 X 600 for the pixels?

If not what is the standard, now.

Thanks!


----------



## FlustardMal (Jul 11, 2011)

Another thing to consider is instead of using a fixed layout, consider using a liquid layout where dimensions are specified as percentages. If you go with a fixed with, on some monitors, your website can be skewed or require horizontal scrolling. You want eliminate any reason for a person to leave your site.

I'd recommend using some dimensions in percentages. Don't forget that screen size and resolution affect text size too, fixed sizing systems may not be ideal.


----------



## prometheus (Oct 19, 2006)

You don't HAVE to fill up all that space! I know with more and more people having large monitors (I have a 23") there can be a feeling of having to fill the dead space. But you have to remember that not everyone has a big monitor, and that it will run off of their screens. And that it be overkill.

With a fluid design, if you have a text box, think of the text stretching across a big screen, it would be difficult to read. Look at other sites, like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter. Those sites keep their size relatively small.

I would still go with at least 800, maybe 1024 at the most.


----------



## starchild (Jul 22, 2009)

Check out yahoo's grids css or 960 grid system and take the guess work out of doing page layouts


----------



## trexart (Aug 3, 2007)

For today, in 2011, I'd say with fixed width designs 960 is probably the most popular, especially with the 960 grid system. Responsive design is really catching on with all of the different devices out today. Basically, you make your design work on mobile devices all the way up to how you want it to look on a large screen. You can do this using @media and basically setting different CSS based on different screen sizes.

Just for people who still want to design for 800x600 which in my opinion is not required anymore, the width never should have been 800 to begin with. Not sure if someone else mentioned this, but at 800 you would still get a horizontal scroll bar, you need to aim for something like 760. You should only be designing for 800x600 now if your target audience will mainly have old screens and browsers.

Cheers,
Steph


----------



## starchild (Jul 22, 2009)

@Steph,

You've got a really nice website. Well put together. That luxury/grunge look goes well with the the site name, price points and high end shirts.

I appreciate the low profile of the main navigation- (although frowned upon by some) it keeps the user focused on a main purpose- shopping.

You must be doing your own prints considering the number of times a shirt goes on and off the press for a finished production.

Anyway, job well done..


----------



## consultantnomo (Jul 21, 2011)

trexart said:


> For today, in 2011, I'd say with fixed width designs 960 is probably the most popular, especially with the 960 grid system.


As a designer/developer, I've been using 960 - 1024 for the last couple/few years.

In looking at the YTD Analytics for one of my retail ecommerce clients (400k uniques per year, with a very broad demographic), 800x600 accounts for only 1.08% of all visitors, and shrinking every month. Phone screens account for 2.66% and rising every month. The other 97% of visitors are all high-res screens.

These numbers are in-line with the other 20 or so clients I manage sites for.


----------



## trexart (Aug 3, 2007)

@starchild Thanks for the nice comments. Sometimes I like our website sometimes I don't, I think websites are like that.
We actually don't do our own printing though sometimes I wish we had that capability as it is pretty pricy. We've got pretty big prints and some difficult stuff though, so unless we had lots of experience, we wouldn't have been able to do it anyway.

@consultantnomo Yeah, I think that sounds about right from anything else I've found. I've really been itching to try some responsive design though. I've had a look at a couple of websites that are great, as you go smaller, the design changes to fit the smaller area, all the way down to mobile.
Just wondering, what are the stats on IE6 for that website with lots of visitors?

Cheers,
Steph


----------



## consultantnomo (Jul 21, 2011)

Steph, for that particular site, all versions of IE account for 66.89% of total browsers. Of that subset, 3.18% are IE 6. So if you rough math it out, IE6 is likely being used by the 800x600 visitors. Shocking... lol

Total Visitors by Browser (325k uniques YTD):
IE 66.86%
Firefox 13.17%
Chrome 5.26% 
Safari (Mac) 5.18%
Safari (iPad) 2.08%
Safari (iPhone) 2.01%
Android Browser 1.96%

Hopefully that helps you all.


----------



## dontblinktees (Mar 2, 2011)

It's most common these days to design for at least for a 1024x768 monitor. My monitor has a 1920x1200 resolution, but I went with a 960 grid to design my site for greatest usability. 

According to my analytics reports, 1280x800 and 1366x768 are the most common resolutions for my visitors, with 1440x900 third, so I'm glad I made the choice to go with a 960px layout. 

My advice is NOT to bother designing for 800x600 monitors. It's not worth it to limit your website's design for a resolution so outmoded. It's like IE6--top developers have essentially given up designing for it. 
Only *0.18% *(yes, *less than 1%*) of the total visitors I've had since my site launched use an 800x600 resolution monitor. Even my huge 1920x1200 resolution is about *20 times more common *among my visitors than 800x600. So I don't suggest you bother with it.


----------



## trexart (Aug 3, 2007)

I just looked at the analytics of my site, which doesn't have huge numbers of visitors, but almost all of people have 1024x768 or greater, with the only amount being smaller, coming from a mobile.

Out of all visitors, 2 total were 800x600.

As for browsers, most people on my site had Firefox then IE then Chrome and Safari.

With IE, zero with IE6 (woo hoo!), IE8 had 53% then IE9 at 36%, then IE7.



Another more business oriented site I did for a client had slightely different visitors:

Only 3% had 800x600.

IE had 55% followed by Firefox then Chrome.

With IE, zero IE6 again (even more woohoo) with IE8 on top at 58% followed by IE7 at 30% then IE9.



And yet another site with a fair number of visitors.

1.4% had 800x600

IE had 37%, with Firefox next at 32% followed by Chrome at 23% then Safari.

With IE, IE8 on top at 57%, IE7 at 26% then IE9 and IE6 last at 2%.


Some different numbers there, but across the board 800x600 and IE6 were almost nil.

Cheers,
Steph


----------



## trexart (Aug 3, 2007)

jmsjhnsn28 said:


> I usually go for 800 in width... i think this is better....


800 in width is pretty much useless for every screen width. 

For an 800x600 screen you will end up with a horizontal scroll bar as the vertical scroll bar takes up at least 15 or so pixels.

If you are aiming for 1024 you might as well go up to 960px.

If you are aiming for 800 you should keep it at about 760px to be safe.

Cheers,
Steph


----------

