You are not Logged in
Would you like to Login or Register

Today is: Friday, 05 September, 2008
Check this months hot topics

What screen size should we be building sites for?

With high resolution screens becoming increasingly cheaper to buy, what screen size should we really be building websites for?

I took some stats from GeekZilla (in google analytics) and was pleased to find that the most popular was reasonable and that the horror which is 800x600 came in eleventh and only held 1.03% of the total.

The top 25

kick it on DotNetKicks.com del.icio.us digg Mister Wong YahooMyWeb Reddit Furl Spurl blogmarks
Paul Hayman Skype
Author : Paul Hayman
Published : Wednesday, 25 July, 2007

Paul is the COO of kwiboo ltd consultant and has more than a decade of IT consultancy experience. He has consulted for a number of blue chip companies and has been exposed to the folowing sectors: Utilities, Telecommunications, Insurance, Media, Investment Banking, Leisure, Legal, CRM, Pharmaceuticals, Interactive Gaming, Mobile Communications, Online Services. Paul is the COO and co-founder of kwiboo (http://www.kwiboo.com/) and is also the creator of GeekZilla.

Comments

Timo said:

This maybe ok for GeekZilla but what about other non-developer sites ? I think developers in general have better setups than average users. I would still check that site is usable with lower resolutions too.

July 26, 2007 - 2:59 PM

Mike said:

It would be best if we could all build a fluid layout sites, but unfortunately it is simply not possible (time/cost wise) using html+css :-(

July 26, 2007 - 3:02 PM

John S. said:

How many Geekzilla visitors though aren't savvy computer users? I'd say your audience probably skews the results. Either way, I think 1024x768 is the minimum you should design for. XP tries to set that as the default resolution so you'd have to try pretty hard to run at 800x600.

July 26, 2007 - 3:09 PM

Chris said:

I suspect this depends on the type of site though, and how technical the audience is.

I manage a healthcare site with a similar number of visits, which gives 1024x768 (65%), 1280x1024 (13%) and then 800x600 (8%).

July 26, 2007 - 4:18 PM

Mark said:

Here is a hint. I did not buy a high resolution monitor so your website could take up the whole damn thing.

July 26, 2007 - 5:36 PM

Dzamir said:

I built my website on 1024

July 26, 2007 - 7:04 PM

Mads said:

Well, it dependes on do you visitors are.

I assume that GeekZilla primarily have developers visiting, and they most likely run higher resolutions than "mom & dad"-users.

July 26, 2007 - 7:05 PM

RobW said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you using visitor stats on this website? That skews the results pretty seriously.

Who visits Geekzilla? I'm guessing mostly geeks, and I'm also guessing their peripherals are not at all representative of the general internet population at all.

July 26, 2007 - 9:54 PM

Dave said:

Just because a monitor is 1024x768 doesn't mean that's the best size for a website. Studies have shown readers can scan a long narrow column better than a square. I've also heard someone measure conversions on 1024 and 800 widths, with 800 giving slightly better results. I want to know who has the 3840x1200 monitor set up. Nice.

July 27, 2007 - 11:00 AM

phayman said:

Dave, I think the 3840x1200 is a triple monitor setup .. similar to one of mine

July 27, 2007 - 11:23 AM

Add Comment

Enter your comment below and it will be submitted for moderation.

Your Name

Add Tag

Please enter tags for this article, seperated by semi-colon ;

View Tag's by : # articles | # views