Graphics for website layout (1020 x 768) or (800x600)?

[Natalie79]

Currently I’m working on my new site and had started rendering the images, I’ve made the image sizes suitable for a 1020x768 screen resolution… for example my main background image is about 920x668 … wanting a larger design and something a little more convenient than my first attempt (http://www.nataliehijazi.com):rolleyes: .

However a friend of mine (a graphic designer) disapproved saying that there was no need to make images so large, and that the majority of people have their screens set to 800x600 anyway… so having the large layout of the site would only be an annoyance to surfers…

But I thought that the majority of people today prefer the 1020x768! In fact surfing on most websites, they would be crammed if I set my screen to 800x600… I was wondering what would member here at coding forums choose of you were to design a site with graphics, what would you choose for your layout?

~Nat

[Pennimus]

Whilst it's not true that the majority of users are at 800x600, the answer you will get here is to make your layout fluid so that it scales to whatever resolution the user happens to be at. This is the ideal for any website regardless of whether it uses graphics or not.

[NancyJ]

Also worth noting that just because the most popular screen resolution is 1024x768, doesnt mean the most popular browsing resolution is. Not everybody browses full screen.

[evo]

Generally you'd pass making a site with a width of around 800px, or 790px.

I don't really do fluid layouts. I find them rather unclean in most occasions.

[Pennimus]

I have to say that as a moderator of a forum that is designed with a liquid layout and dedicated to giving decent advice to people I'm surprised you could come out with that. 800 or 790 wide? How can you suggest that? At that size, 800 x 600 users will have a horizontal scrollbar. Just because you for whatever reason don't do liquid layouts, doesn't mean it isn't the best advice to give. And surely thats the whole point in this forum?

[firepages]

I'm a moderator as well on this fluid board but I dont like fluid layouts either ... you would beed to talk to the boss about that one (WA).

Actually I do like fluid layouts but then you spend too much time trying to balance the content for different viewing sizes, a forum will probably work quite well regardless but it is a very basic structure e.g. all horizontals , no left or right menus to chase around.

[Natalie79]

Sorry, but I'm not sure about what you mean when you say "Fluid" design, I'm guessing it's when you design a site in a way that no matter how large the browser window, it spreads out to the limits of the window?

[Natalie79]

There's a personal reason as to why I'm researching this issue: I like the little compact designs i see around (example:Furiae (http://www.furiae.com/index.php?view=gallery)). I get a little annoyed when browsing through galleries and encounter:
1) Popup windows to view images
2) When the site's layout plunges as low as Jlo's wardrobe that you have to scroll up and down continuously to view the content (this is PERFECTLY fine when browsing forums... so no offence, Pennimus ;) )
3) When the image loads in the same page so to view the next image you have to go back and wait for all the thumbs to reload again.

I know these are all petty things to be concerned about… but since this will be my own site, I guess I could try and got through all the trouble to make it as I prefer:rolleyes: . What I'm trying to design is a layout where everything is visible on screen at one time: menu, thumbs and loading images… I'm thinking of using Iframes to view the thumbs and images where you can scroll each menu or image on its own… in a way like using frames.

That's what I have in mind… the only decision is do I make it 1020x768 or 800x600 since it will have a graphical layout… so far it looks like I'll probably be making it 1020x768 … it won't be comfortable for people browsing with 800x600 though…

Boy this is gonna be a mess!

~Nat

[mark87]

Well, alot of 'blog' style layouts use fixed widths and make it comfortable for 800*600 +, but on larger resolutions such as 1600*1200 they'll be left with quite an odd looking page. That said, I'm not sure how many people with 1600*1200 would actually browse with the window maximized.

If you go for 780px it allows for the vertical scrollbar (which is about 17px iirc), so 800*600 users won't get a horizontal scrollbar.

[ubik]

780px for width is a good fixed size. Fluid layouts are pretty good but you have to tweak it all out to get it perfect. you can make it so when viewed in large resolutions everything gets spaced out to the fullest and empty space gets filled in with textures and things like that.

LOL.. if you want it perfect as in image size proportions to to the browser window (assuming browsing is done at fullscreen) just make 2 different sites. Design in 1024 then size down when making the 800 version. Hardly ever see this done anymore, guess they just got lazy out there, or maybe they dont like splash pages, perhaps a small link on the default page referring to the other resolution? I care about image size and quality so this is the way i do it. do what works best for you.

[Natalie79]

If you want it perfect as in image size proportions to to the browser window (assuming browsing is done at fullscreen) just make 2 different sites. Design in 1024 then size down when making the 800 version.

Actually, that was my initial idea, but wanted to first see if there were better ways, but it looks like i might do exactly that after all... at the end of the day it's really about wanting to offer something graphically appealing, but at the same time to keep it user friendly as much as possible.

[mark87]

You could still do something graphically appealing, yet compromise slightly for 800*600 users. As long as the main content area is about 780px, you could have fancy graphics etc outside of that for larger resolutions and just allow the edges to be cropped for 800*600. At least that way the 800*600 users can still read/see what they need to, but larger resolutions will get more eye candy so to speak.

[oracleguy]

Also worth noting that just because the most popular screen resolution is 1024x768, doesnt mean the most popular browsing resolution is. Not everybody browses full screen.

Quite true, like I usually don't have my browser window maximized. And you might want to think about that people will also have stuff that is always on top on their desktop that will lower the maximum window size even if they are running at like 1024 (e.g. chat programs, google deskbar, etc.)

[NancyJ]

I always browse fullscreen, even at 1280x1024, and probably will when I get as high as 1600x1200, its just the way I am. But of the people I've worked with and other people I've seen 'surfing', I'd say its around 50:50 on those that browse full screen and those that dont. Would be nice is browser stats recorded window size instead of resolution.

[mark87]

I'm the same, always keep window near enough maximized at 1280x1024. When I went from 800x600 to it, it seemed like a massive difference, yet now browsing maximized feels like normal (much less scrolling about!) and I'm not sure if I could go to a lower res!

I guess the conclusion is code for all resolutions and those in between; although that's the reason why you see so many 780px width sites thesedays, because it's often challenging to create a fluid layout that works and looks good in all resolutions.

[NancyJ]

Have you seen http://www.vivabit.com/ - designs about 6 months old now but its still drool-worthy.
In the words of HTMLDog.com

t's a Moll/Griffiths production! It's liquid! It's curvy! It's elastic! It's hack free! It's a design / accessibility orgy!

[Natalie79]

Have you seen http://www.vivabit.com/ - designs about 6 months old now but its still drool-worthy.
In the words of HTMLDog.com


Mmmmmm... that IS a very nice page... very smooth, and VERY different from what i have in mind, but it's ok now: i've FINALLY decided on the technical part of the layout, and began working on the design and have finished the main graphic of the site, and i've also decided to make it in BOTH sizes... it's a bit of a pain, but i don't mind.

Seriously; i waste far too much time making choices and worrying about outcome and opinions... i should just go for what i feel i like best, and so far i feel happy with the progress... still i cared to hear you feed back, so :thumbsup: THANKS!

~nAT

[TheOne(AKA:T1)]

Now a days, evry body is buying a LCD, so the custom resolution is moving from 800x600 to 1024 (and next 1280)