800x600 or 1024x768

[Kelly Creative]

ignore me for being thick but can't you put like 30% borders meaning the bigger the screen the bigger the border or some ming>?>

[jkinz]

I use 1024x786 but make sure all of my content fits within 800x600

[onesummer]

I make sure the site looks "best" in at least 1024x768, however, I do make sure it will "fit" in 800x600, though it may not look as Pristine as in 1024x768. Again, same reasoning as toon. enough people still use in 800x600 resolution to make it "necessary". You must also take into account who the majority of your viewing audience will be. FOr instance, I work for an American textile manufacturer, and so many of its clients are old fogies who are old school, who have poor eye site, etc, so they often are in 800x600 resolution. They are also the ones who probably have the money and decision making abilities, so if I do not provide then with an aesthetically pleasing website in 800x600, it would be poor on my part. But if the business the design is for has a much narrower scope for an audience, say for instances much younger people, like kids or teens (who, in turn, probably have much younger parents, and therefore "newer" computers with LCD monitors) then 1024x768 would be appropriate and 800x600 would not be as "necessary".

[Cwilk]

I just did research on this issue a few months ago and found that most websites don't even use a set size except to incorporate banners and such.

Our company kind of moves the size around between 800 to 1024 width and depending on the look, we will scroll down or not. A lot of it is a creative thing and not a technical thing.

And my 2 cents is ALWAYS cater to your client. But it doesn't hurt to let them know why you want to do it at a certain size and if they say no, then maybe they'll come back to you for a redesign. : )

[Shadab]

I always design for resolutions of 1024 x 768 and 1152 x 864.

From the Google analytics reports of my own couple of sites, as well as some other stats and survey results, i think i can say that 800 x 600 is becoming kinda old/obsolete.

Thanx,
Shadab.

[rossable]

i run 1680 x 1050 on my primary screen and 1280 x 1024 on my secondary.
i would run higher if my monitors/vid-card supported it.

i design for a range of 770 x 300 to 1000 x 700 if i'm doing a fixed width site depending on target demographic.
i prefer designing dynamic width sites that way it doesn't matter and those with larger screens don't have large amounts of wasted white space on the sides.

[James Random]

Other and Why - bigger is better :D

[D856C]

...you should cater to large screens as well as small ones now.

There are numerous layouts and CMS systems which provide for text control. Others allow you to change frivolous things like colors.

There is no earthly reason you can't have a narrow version for people with large screen, high resolution monitors. Put the control right where the text controls are now.

I actually observe users using sites, and if you're the least bit clued into usability you can provide controls the user can access without problems.

Such things have been CSS Zen Garden Gimmicks long enough. Use style switching to give some control over to the user. And not just with a narrow width, but rethink line height and text size as well. Actually view the layout in a large screen setup.

[korhan]

800x600

can fit any screen. and i'm using 800x600 ANYTHING 12 years... (except the desktop res)

[kumailht]

i use google analytics , and out of 1000`s of users only a few use 800 x 600
70% use 1024 x 768 and the rest use higher res, mostly wide.

60% + use firefox, 20% use ie7 [i have no idea why] and the rest use safari , ie6 camino, netscape etc etc