Why're big corps doing 800px sites nowadays

[Richard]

I'm sure its been discussed somewhere - but I can't find anything on why the
majority of hundreds of bigtime sites I see weekly are designed into about
765px wide - mostly nonframe.

It seems not many years ago I first learned thru forums to either design for
any size screen resolution or to use a script to redirect to a set of
specific size index pages, mostly filled with the same included material but
maybe different presentation and css. Plus I routinely resize their browser
window to full screen on load so no other windows show.

Every customer I go to now asks why I am not designing modern "simple sites"
that sit in the middle of the bigger screens prevalent today. My customers
think putting those small web page tables in the middle of a screen is to
make it a focal point. Ugh!!!!! Look at every bank - e.g. Citibank, Usbank;
phone co's e.g Sprint, Verizon; utilities; major vendors, you name it. I just
lost a church to a guy who pitched an entire site that fits 800x600 page
tables.

Have I missed something? Do studies show that people are selecting 800x600
even if they buy a 15", 17" or 19"?

 

[Jim Buyens]

There are as many answers to this question as there are Web designers, but in
my opinion there are three main causes:

1. 800x600 is the least common denominator.

2. There's been an influx of graphic artists and other
professions from the graphic industry, and those folks
having trouble designing variable-width layouts.
I'm treading on this ice here, but I think this is
because:

a. All their training and experience has been on
fixed-width layouts. When they design a poster,
or a restaurant menu, or a magazine page, or a
brochure, the first question is, "What size
should it be?" and then they design to that.

b. Every layout *does* have an optimum size. If you
design a liquid layout that looks OK at any width
from 700 pixels to 1600 pixels, there's still one
width where it looks the best.

3. Because of 1 and 2, fixed-width layouts have become
trendy.

Jim Buyens
Microsoft MVP
http://www.interlacken.com
Author of:
*----------------------------------------------------
|\---------------------------------------------------
|| Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services Inside Out
|| Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 Inside Out
||---------------------------------------------------
|| Web Database Development Step by Step .NET Edition
|| Microsoft FrontPage Version 2002 Inside Out
|| Faster Smarter Beginning Programming
|| (All from Microsoft Press)
|/---------------------------------------------------
*----------------------------------------------------

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

No, just that many users of high resolution monitor view in a browser window that is about 800
pixels, so that they can have other windows open and viewable.

I run 1280 x 1024 and normally have 3 or 4 windows open at a time. I never have any application open
to full screen.

When you design in a fixed width, you ensure that your content is always in same relative position
for each users vs. when designing with a flexible layout, where the content shifts to fit the
windows. A fixed width gives you more control over, the limited control that you do have, on how
users will see the site.

A flexible layout requires a more work to plan and design to ensure that the pages look good for all
browser window sizes, especially when working with tight layout/design. You lose the limited control
you do have over how users will see the site.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Richard]

Thanks Jim and Thomas
Let's further the discussion - and maybe other MVPs as well as you two noted
experts will weigh-in Tuesday?

I'll agree with you as far as you listed, Jim, knowing that I began
designing print 30 years ago. A 30 year old relative, head graphic artist for
a giant household name agrees too. Thomas, we may use multiple windows but my
own enduser observations from offices to homes to my own kids shows most
people minimize other windows so they see one at a time - even if the desktop
shows. The amount of work and difficulty of presentation theory is good for
average companies - but how about the companies below where the resources
exist to set up multiple versions - and by my recollection - they used-to do
it.

Here on my HP 1792x1344 left monitor (1920 max) with 120dip font setting - I
just fit 3 totally readable index page windows: Dell & HP side by side with
even Microsoft.com's 1068 completely underneath. All first opened in a full
size window just incase they use a function with
"screen.availWidth,screen.availHeight".

Admittedly, Microsoft KB, MSDN, newsgroup and partner pages fit and work
best with big screens - but not sales pages.

On my right 1068, even all Macromedia's pages are 800's, including DW (for
Apache) - thus looking small even on my standard res laptop. Apple's pages,
including those pushing their big screens are 800's. Due to spreadsheets, I
haven't seen a business client purchase less than 15" since the 90's and
usually much bigger.

By your proposed theory Jim:
HP and Dell, plus even Microsoft, elitist DW and Mac are recently populated
with non-code savvy graphic artists who don't know how to program for good
presentation on the very products they are pushing. If I was a
hardware/software source that wanted to sell up - I'd sure maximize my
presentation.

You certainly are right - but there's got to be more to it.

**********************************************

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

1. If a site opens to full screen or changes my browser windows size, then I don't return to that
site.

2. I don't know of any clients that would want to pay me to build the same site twice, and the added
cost of maintenance, plus it is a waste of time today since the mainstream browsers basically
display content the same, now I do think a duplicate site should be build to deal with PDA users,
etc. Back in 1996-1998, there were some real differences in the NS and IE, that a developers that
like NS, designed sites that only worked in NS browsers, and as you indicated they created a
separate set of pages for IE. Developers that like the IE browser, generally built sites that worked
in both browsers, at least that is what I did.

3. As I write this I have notepad, FP, Access , OE (and this message open), and just closed IE, all
at about 800 pixels wide overlapping each other, and I do regularly resize two apps so that I can
have them open side by side when I need to cut and paste between them. My goal is to have as much of
my desktop available as possible while working.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================

 

[Ronx]

Plus I routinely resize their browser

window to full screen on load so no other windows show.

That is an excellent reason for not visiting any of your web sites. Resize
my browser - goodbye forever! What on earth do you need a browser opened to
2560x1024 for?

If you check statistics
(http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) 35% of users have
their monitors set to a resolution of 800x600 or less. That is a
significant number of people to annoy with wide pages. Plus those users who
have higher resolution monitors and open their browsers in small windows.

For the record, the only people I know who regularly open their browser to
full screen are web designers or visually handicapped (with low resolution
monitor settings).

 

[Steve Easton]

<My 2 cents.>
1. Read this: http://evolt.org/article/Real_World_Browser_Size_Stats_Pat_II/20/2297/

2. You're looking at this from the wrong side of the internet "spectrum" in that the goal is to
design for the viewers ease of use, not the designers ego.
You can create the greatest graphics in the world, but if you force a visitor to scroll side to side
to see what is hidden over in la la land on the right side of the screen, you're going to loose the
visitor.

3. A simple rule that goes back to Business Management 101: You have 15 to 20 seconds to "capture"
a visitors interest. If the visitor has to spend the majority of this time waiting for the page to
load and display, or dragging the page around with the scrollbars they will simply leave.

4. As for screen resolution, the majority of the people honestly do not know that you can change a
monitors screen resolution, and they simply go with what it is set at when it comes out of the box.

5. As for forcing a resolution change. Do that and the majority of the people see it as invasive
and leave. Myself included. Nothing aggravates me more than having to grab the title bar and drag
the upper right corner back into view. As a matter of fact I won't. I simply Alt+F4 and never
return.

6. I use an 18 inch monitor on a machine with 2 operating systems, 2 versions of Visual Studio and
3 versions of FrontPage and the monitor is set at 800 by 600. Why?? Because I'm 57 and need
reading glasses to see it even at 800 by 600.

</My 2 cents.>

--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Web designers who work for big corporations don't set the requirements. They
just fulfill them. The reason I'm saying that is, who knows how these
corporate types make their decisions? From my experience, it would seem that
they generally stick their fingers into the air, see how the wind is
blowing, and go along with the crowd.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

 

[Richard]

I must be like Steve - I grew up catering to the end customer because that
made sales

Ronx and Thomas:
Since it is not the main issue - perhaps I should have written more about
resizing or left it out.

On Sizing:
Years ago I learned - RIGHT ON THESE PAGES and other forums - to check
screen size and make 4 index width sizes.
1) Start with frame breakout on home page index
2) If 1000 or less, maximize, move to 0,0, redirect to folder1 //table fits
800
3) if 1200 or less, maximize, move to 0,0, redirect to folder2 //table fits
1024
4) if 1400 or less, maximize, move to 0,0, redirect to folder3 //table fits
1280
5) else leave alone, redirect to folder4 //table fits 1440

(for simple sites I use 2 folders, not 4)

Folder 1-4 layouts are pretty simple and last for a long time.
1) Client identifier graphics may be different - optimized,
2) navigation columns different widths,
3) css includes may specify different font or size due to expected pixel
size (I wear glasses like Steve - but I have 3 monitors and a laptop to test
visual on),
4) for presentation,
a) client text/graphics is all the same includes (from say folder tree
"main")
b) but cells more vertically laidout in narrow windows
c) or horizontal format for wider windows,
and,
d) for balance, wider sizes often get an additional right or left table
column with "artwork" meaning some generic flash or graphics that don't have
to be changed like product or info material. For variation I often use a
graphic rotator script in that columns cells.

I know I am not the only one doing this - and I learned about it originally
right here. My scripts are custom written - but beginners can find the same
scripts separated at ElScripto and others.

 

[Susan]

So based upon the posts, please give us some pointers on how to design.
Should we never use the % but design using fixed tables for screen 800px?

 

[Kevin Spencer]

So based upon the posts, please give us some pointers on how to design.

Should we never use the % but design using fixed tables for screen 800px?

You should design as per your client's requirements. If you have control
over the design, you should design as per your own requirements and/or
inclinations.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

 

[Susan]

I understand that. But if someone who does not know much about websites-
like a church, a non-profit organization who do not specify requirements but
give content requirements only, are there any suggestions please?

Happy Mardi Gras!

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Sure, I already gave one to you:

Let me explain. If there was such a thing as a design that guaranteed more
traffic to your web site, everybody would be using the same design. There is
not. So, make your client happy, and make yourself happy.

Some general rules: Don't put too much binary (images etc) content into your
pages. Slow load times drive people away from your site. Make the site easy
to navigate. People will be looking for specific content. Don't make them
work too hard finding it, or they will look elsewhere.

And finally, as you are designing for your church, get some feedback from
your clients, and make changes accordingly. If they like it, that's all that
matters.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

 

[Richard]

Kevin is right - IF your client knows what to specify. You will find that at
major corporate operations.
Most of mine have no IT person, contract out print and maybe broadcast
advertising or a staffer uses Publisher - not Quark.
For web presence they CAME TO ME as a professional to ADVISE them. Usually
their only specification is "I want this [sales or info or registration site]
result. My modest business or organization clients (like sports or churches)
ask "Richard what will achieve my goal?" Then I ask how big a base they are
working toward - to guess the volume of hits as to whether elaborate design
or simple is needed. Like Steve - I aim to have at least the most important
elements of a page load fast on dialup (using preload) and to have their
first view capture the viewer's interest. That is why I, and others used to,
target visual presentation to the viewer's computer and capture the full
visual area most of the time.
My point now - is where did this attention to sales detail all disappear to?

 

[Steve Easton]

More comments.

Preload, does not speed up anything. It may make all images / page content display simultaneously
when it "Does" display but it does not make a page load faster.
Actually a large "Preload" script can add enough "weight" to the page that it is more detrimental
than not having it at all.

You've lost me on disappearing attention to sales.!!

Sales objective 1: Get the page loaded now, and capture the viewers / visitors/ customers
attention, give them a reason to enter the site.
Sales objective 2: Display your wares.

Case in point.
Think about the most effective "Home" page that exists on the Internet today.
www.google.com


--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

Kevin is right - IF your client knows what to specify. You will find that at
major corporate operations.
Most of mine have no IT person, contract out print and maybe broadcast
advertising or a staffer uses Publisher - not Quark.
For web presence they CAME TO ME as a professional to ADVISE them. Usually
their only specification is "I want this [sales or info or registration site]
result. My modest business or organization clients (like sports or churches)
ask "Richard what will achieve my goal?" Then I ask how big a base they are
working toward - to guess the volume of hits as to whether elaborate design
or simple is needed. Like Steve - I aim to have at least the most important
elements of a page load fast on dialup (using preload) and to have their
first view capture the viewer's interest. That is why I, and others used to,
target visual presentation to the viewer's computer and capture the full
visual area most of the time.
My point now - is where did this attention to sales detail all disappear to?

So based upon the posts, please give us some pointers on how to design.
Should we never use the % but design using fixed tables for screen 800px?

 

[clintonG]

<snip />

If you look in the Sunday papers you will have observed that for at least
the last year most computers are being sold with 17" monitors. Walk up to
one of the computers on the shelf in any of the big retailers and check the
desktop settings and you will discover that 1024x768 is coming from the
factory as the defacto configuration.

The 800x600 layouts became prevalent when the 15" monitor was the common
hardware denominator and the factory desktop settings were configured
accordingly. The higher 1024x768 resolution was possible of course but it
was the lower 800x600 resolution that was deemed optimal for the 15"
monitor. I support the contention that the lower resolution on the smaller
monitors was chosen as it was in fact optimal for reading on the smaller
display.

Over time -- perhaps this year or next -- market saturation will occur, many
people will continue to use 15" monitors of course and there are going to be
800x600 layouts around for some time but through attrition people will buy
up to 17" (or larger) or will acquire a 17" monitor with a new computer
purchase. That will continue to tip the trend toward 1024x768 as the defacto
'standard' resolution.

This same phenomena occurred several years ago with color settings and
design of images. It seems like only yesterday that people were asking how
many colors they should use for images and design of their website layouts.
At the time the video cards could not output the colors we have available
today. These days, the 'Browser Safe Colors' are a historical footnote and
only became so after vendors equipped their computers with video cards that
were factory configured to support many colors. For the most part, consumers
had no idea what was going on and simply used what they were being sold as
it was configured right out of the box.

I contend the same is happening now with monitor resolution. In time, this
discussion and any arguements that may come of it will fade away and become
as meaningless as discussions related to browser safe colors which in
general we do not even hear mentioned anymore.

There is however IMO one credible argument that could slow the trend towards
1024x768 and that would be the emergence of the LCD monitors. While I am
confident my assessment is credible and the adoption of higher resolutions
will in fact occur in the same way as we witnessed higher color settings it
would only be so when discussing the CRT. As LCDs are quite costly it seems
the 15" form factor has lots of life left in it and will for some time
continue to compromise the growing use of 1024x768 resolutions as the 15"
LCDs are being configured to support 800x600 for the same reason the 15"
CRTs were so configured and that is simply because 800x600 enables an
optimal reading experience on the 15" form factor.

Still, the price vs form factor phenomena that affected video cards and
color and then the size of the CRT and its resolution will similarly affect
LCDs and the 1024x768 higher resolutions will became prevalent as will
higher and higher resolutions as the price vs form factor metrics change.

For me, this has been a learning experience that was at first an observation
and then confirmed as it replicated itself allowing me to come to a
conclusion. Thus, common sense demands that persons who also come to
understand the price vs form factor phenomena and how it affects
configuration will also be compelled to stop relying on fixed table layouts
and learn to master CSS.

 

[Tom J]

More comments.

Preload, does not speed up anything. It may make all images / page
content display simultaneously
when it "Does" display but it does not make a page load faster.
Actually a large "Preload" script can add enough "weight" to the
page that it is more detrimental
than not having it at all.

You have that right! I'm still on dial-up as are the majority of those
on the internet. When I go to any website that doesn't start putting
something on the screen within 5 to 10 seconds, I'm gone. You never
know what might be loading onto you computer. The same goes for sites
that have to have shockwave or some other add on running to open - I
leave at once! It may not be the majority, but a sizable number do as
I do.

Tom J

 

[Clark]

Susan, I use a fixed width table in the range of 550 - 600 px and fit everything
into it. That way it will never over-run anyone's browser causing them to have
to horizontally scroll.

The "worst" that happens is that on monitors set to higher resolutions, it
doesnt come close to filling the screens. Nothing wrong with that -- those folks
just see it as taking up a smaller portion of their screen.

And the folks with low-resolution monitors see a page the mostly, but not
completely fills their screen.

Trust me -- if you set all your pages to 550 pixels you just dont have to worry
about screens and resolutions. (just dont go trying to cram a 700 pixel wide
image in!)

 

[Craig Schiller]

Well, just for the record, now you know one more --- me!

Craig

 

[John]

I run 1280 x 1024 and normally have 3 or 4 windows open at a time. I never have any application open
to full screen.

Just my .02, I generally have 6~10 windows open (though I
often hit over 15) and will be toggling between them at full-screen
size. I run 1280X960 on my 2 x 22" Mac monitors.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email