What is a good minimum resolution requirement for a website? Very few even use 640×480 resolution and not many use 800×600 either. 1024×768 and 1280×1024 are the two most common.
What resolution is best for a website as a minimum?
@pcthugJul 16.2006 — #I votes 1024x768, you are pretty safe with a 800-1024 resolution site as long as you keep the majority of your navigation elements to the left side of the page.
@Stephen_PhilbinJul 16.2006 — #I make sure a page holds together from between 500 to 600 pixels width and up on the screen media type. Anything lower than that and device should be selecting the handheld media for decoration really.
Remember that how a page looks is a distant second place to how a page functions.
@bmassJul 16.2006 — #In a university web design course they say to use 800x600 to keep in mind those that may run their screen in that, but no one does. Therefore I recommend 1024x768 as some people do still run their screens at that resolution.
@ulillilliaauthorJul 16.2006 — #From polls in other forums, 800x600 is used by about 4 in every 100 users, 1024x768 by about 45 in every 100 users, 1280x1024 by about 35 in every 100 users, 1600x1200 by 9 in every 100 users. 640x480 was never chosen. 1920x1440 is used by 2 in every 100 users and 2048x1536 was never used. I didn't take widescreen into account as I don't know the standard widescreen resolutions (other than 16:9 aspect ratio).
I don't remember the exact figures, but this is about how it was broken up. There were only a very few 800x600 users and tons at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. I'm about to join the 1920x1440 users....
@AlbatrossJul 17.2006 — #While I personally prefer using 800x600 (actually, about 778 pixels across in Internet Explorer when you get down to it), as the bare minimum for the Web sites I build, I do try to make sure the sites are usable at 640x480 as well. Restricting your users to a single width is akin to asking Shaquille O'Neal to drive a clown car in my opinion. The visitor has to come first, or else you're not doing your job. So the next time you build a Web site, or even help someone on here (or any other forum) with their site, keep the visitor in mind. Because ultimately, their satisfaction is worth more than the highest search engine rankings or the best looking design. Afterall, they are the people you are targeting in the first place. Not your ego.
@JPnycJul 17.2006 — #I prefer expanding sites myself, but there are some types of designs where that's just not possible. In that event, you have to aim for the largest segment of the audience, or 1024 width.
@ulillilliaauthorJul 17.2006 — #1152x864 would classify as the "above 1024x768" option. The width matters much more than the height. The bulk of my website is designed around 800x600 resolution as the minimum. Areas with photos and screenshots, however, are designed around 1024x768. I keep table widths no higher than 768 pixels wide and avoid images wider than that, except if thumbnailed with the high-res version made available through clicking a link, usually the image.
@AlbatrossJul 17.2006 — #Yeah, the width does matter more than the height. The main thing to keep in mind when designing for the lower screen resolutions is to make sure that the most important page elements (navigation for example) and page content is "above the fold" meaning you do not have to scroll down just to see it.
@felgallJul 17.2006 — #Web readers use a width of zero.
Handhelds use a width of around 100-200 pixels.
WebTV uses a fixed 544px with no overrides allowed.
Printed copies usually around 730px.
Other non-computer devices use a variety of resolutions.
As more people access the web using devices other than computers the resolution becomes less relevant as there wont be any size that dominates.
Even on computer screens the screen resolution means nothing since the screen size has no relationship to the space available in the browser window to actually display the web page because even if the browser is maximized you still need to subtract for fixed menubars on the desktop and also the browser chrome including an unknown number of toolbars.
@wamboidJul 17.2006 — #My personal preference is to make it look good at 800x600 and at least tollerable at even lower resolutions, although I want a fluid design that will look good at larger resolutions also. It would also depend a bit on who your audience is. In a normal month across the sites that I track, 61% of the vistiors still use 800x600 and 30% use 1024x768. When I put a site up for review on this forum or mention it on other tech forums, the higher resolutions tend to take a jump.
Like several have said, high resolution doesn't mean the browser will be that large, yet another reason to look good at smaller sizes. I agree felgall when he said that resolution is becoming less relevant, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it means nothing. To me, you need to make a site look it's best at the size that you estimate most of your audience to be seeing it at. Then, when laid out correctly, it should degrade to something tolerable at smaller sizes or, as felgall mentioned, to a screen reader.