Is bigger really better?

[Ho Ho Bird]

A while ago I got involved in a debate over whether 800 wide sites are old hat and that 1024 (?) was the new norm. I thought I'd seek some clarification and try and put a cat in with the pigeons.

(I should say I'm stuck at 800 with V8 and no skills to do anything differently for a while).

I currently use a 19" monitor and contemplating buying a 24" - Not because I want to see fancier, wider and more glam websites, but I want to be able to have several applications open and viewable at the same time. I'm particularly thinking of the small i-player pop-out.

As the resolution of the new screens isn't advancing as much as the size, is there an argument for keeping applications to a modest size to allow this multi-tasking?

[jont]

Don't forget to factor in multiple displays as well

[RuralWeb]

800 wide sites died 3 years ago IMO

[jont]

We will soon have the 75 wide sites when the internet is pumped straight into a pair of RayBans ... or the 25 wide site monitor embedded into a gold Sovereign ring (£19.99 from Argos).

There is no right and wrong answer as the technology available keeps on changing - iPhones are straight out of StarTrek, laptops get smaller, desktops get bigger... this is before we factor in the user preferences.

[RuralWeb]

As jont says things are changing all the time so I will clarify my view. For fixed width sites 800 is well and truely gone - I however favour fluid designs that will resize to fit any width of screen including 800 if you want to go that low. Mobile shopping is comming fast as more people get phones like the iPhone which don't really care what size the site is built to so soon it will not really matter

[Ho Ho Bird]

Interesting responses. Thanks. I hadn't thought about the 'Netbooks' that everyone seems to be selling. I understand some of these are still at 800.
Perhaps this should point a warning to those (like the rubgy one under review which got me thinking about this) that building fixed and wide sites could be limiting their customer base.

[Duncan Rounding]

Many netbooks are at 800 (mine included) but not that many pople actually use them - those that will do from nowish onwards will more than likely either go mobile or get 1024 IMO. I think the number of netbooks at 800 is reducing fast.

[RuralWeb]

I understand some of these are still at 800.

Not the one Ive seen (remember they are user definable)

Perhaps this should point a warning to those (like the rubgy one under review which got me thinking about this) that building fixed and wide sites could be limiting their customer base.

You should base your design on user stats - if visitors to your site never use 800 then there is no point in having it set at 800. Until quite recently 800 users accounted for about 12% of users however its now down to about 2-4%. This is due to all the old PCs that were handed down to older users who are now buying much better spec PCs. When W7 is released then I expect many more people to upgrade and the % of 800 users to drop even more.

Using a fixed width site is OK as long as you know the lowest level you must cater for. Its easy to change and well worth experimenting with to see what users like best as every site community is different

[RuralWeb]

As Duncan says early netbooks may have been 800 but most are now 1024 eg http://www.dell.com/content/products...iron%20netbook

[pinbrook]

As Duncan says early netbooks may have been 800

mine is an early 7" asus, which will not go higher than 800 unless you plug it into an external monitor. i don't want to dump it as it really does fit into my handbag, unlike the newer notbooks which are often 10"

[RuralWeb]

Excuse for a new handbag then jo

[jont]

Do women need excuses for new handbags?

[RuralWeb]

Yes jo as jont says you don't need an excuse to get rid of that out dated 800pix handbag and get yourself the latest designer 1024 leather bound wonder bag.

[Duncan Rounding]

This might just be big enough: http://bit.ly/16DxXk

[jont]

You could get a 286 with a CRT in that one.