Upping screen sizes we build to

[leehack]

Interestingly, now that in many cases we have less height than before we are also seeing a trend towards larger headers and so people are becoming more acustomed to scrolling down the page. What was above the fold before may not be anymore.

Absolutely, a little bizarre this area of change is. I used to love square screens, but they hardly exist anymore, but because widescreens have gone so wide, height has naturally grown, although screen ratios do look somewhat different nowadays, i think height is still about the same. I now have:

1680 x 1050 and 1440 x 900, both reasonably new screens, these replaced:

1280 x 800 and 1024 x 768, so on both i gained more height. The 1680 one can be rotated 90 degrees too which is quite bizarre and great for coding at 1050 x 1680.

Laptop users are the biggest sufferers IMO and extra width would benefit them all.

[pinbrook]

Agreed, my feeling is to stay round the 1000 mark to allow people the choice

[Golf Tee Warehouse]

For anybody wishing to use Google Analytics to monitor the the change in browser widths might want to read this webpage Segmenting visitors by screen resolution in Google Analytics which gives a step by step guide to setting up segments in GA to compare visitors with "1280 and over" to "under 1280" or 1024 if you prefer.
It doesn't take long as is an interesting exercise as an introductions to segmenting in GA.

P.S. From what I have read GA reports the actual screen width and not the browser width - It uses the DOM variable "screen.width" (if that means anything to you)

[Rich Brady]

A wider screen doesn't neccessarily mean a wider browser.

As screens go wider I think more and more people have more than one application open at once and hence don't always use the browser full width. The screen stats around might not take that into consideration when publishing figures.

This will become more apparent with Windows 7 users who enable the "Snap" feature that align panes next to one another within the same window.

If that kind of option becomes widely used then few people will ever use their browser to fill their whole screen.

[pinbrook]

I used to love square screens

you still got a 12" CRT TV in your bedroom Lee?

[pinbrook]

Yeah that's the point though, if a site didn't work on 1024, you'd 1280 it

Not really, i forgive amazon lots of things because i find it convenient to shop there, i would not apply the same theory to lesser known sites unless they were really really special. I'd just get irritated than i had to scroll across.

Duncan summed up my thoughts more eloquently

A wider screen doesn't neccessarily mean a wider browser.

and Rich deliverd the final blow

This will become more apparent with Windows 7 users who enable the "Snap" feature that align panes next to one another within the same window.

My wish for the future would be to design a fluid site with a min width of 1000 and a max width of 1280

[leehack]

My wish for the future would be to design a fluid site with a min width of 1000 and a max width of 1280

I think that would be perfect too and a great idea. Once old browsers are banished and full modern css supporting ones are the norm, this will certainly be possible.

I think at 1280, there really is no more room needed, like you summed up perfectly too wide is just hard to read anyway. I just think at 1024 that things are just a bit too narrow at the moment for what we want to do.

[pinbrook]

I just think at 1024 that things are just a bit too narrow at the moment for what we want to do.

You are probably right

For usability, there is not great harm in using the right hand column for upsell and other plethora so if peeps use smaller res, they can both navigate and see products within 1000 and not have to scroll across.

[Paul Bulpit]

Five egg's worth:

From a business use perspective, we bought 8 matching 17" TFT screens some years ago and they are all going strong so there's no need to replace them with fancy widescreen versions. They are smart and clear and best viewed at 1024.

It therefore annoys me when I have to scroll horizontally, (and even more so when a site changes from page to page, like cpc.co.uk does sometimes).

Many of my customers are hard-up florists - they won't have fancy screens either, some of them are still on CRT!

I don't quite follow why wide sites have deep headers? I too like square screens - maybe I need a widescreen in portrait mode!

_____________
Paul

[Rich Brady]

The other consideration you will have, rightly or wrongly, is the size of screen your client uses.

I know for a fact that if you built a site for 1280 and above and they have a smaller screen. Regardless of what the stats say they will want it to look perfect on there aging computer. LOL

Random River's latest offering (http://www.magnifyingglasses.co.uk/)was 750px wide because Chris' client had a small screen...

[pinbrook]

Random River's latest offering (http://www.magnifyingglasses.co.uk/)was 750px wide because Chris' client had a small screen...

funnily enough the first thing i looked for on this site was the ability to increase the text size - surely if you are looking for magnifying glasses to make it easier to read small print a simple +1, +2 would be a useful feature for the site. or it that the way a perverse mind works?

[Mike Hughes]

funnily enough the first thing i looked for on this site was the ability to increase the text size - surely if you are looking for magnifying glasses to make it easier to read small print a simple +1, +2 would be a useful feature for the site. or it that the way a perverse mind works?

Although maybe in this case by not making it easy for the visitor they're re-inforcing the need for the reading aids they sell.

I would possibly reinforce the message a bit more by having some bits in really small print and saying "if you find this hard to read, you need our new goghenscholler computer screen enlarger* "

* With built in glare reducer for those shockingly bright sites.

Mike

[Mark H]

* With built in glare reducer for those shockingly bright sites.

Hmm - might get me one of those........

Any examples of sites fixed around the 1200 mark, particularly aimed at AB/C1s and/or business users?

[Mike Hughes]

Any examples of sites fixed around the 1200 mark, particularly aimed at AB/C1s and/or business users?

None that come to mind. Are you having trouble finding one?

I was just feeling proud that "goghenscholler" sounds like a real name but had no Google results*. Although that doesn't work any more as they've now indexed this thread.

Mike

* easily pleased I know.

[Mark H]

I'm tending to agree with Lee on this one, particularly the idea of essential content up to 1000 with non-essential to the right (news etc) up to 1200.

Although I tend to be an early adopter (not always entirely wisely), I still baulk at being the first, and couldn't find a site fixed at about 1200..............