The resolution 640x480 i believe shouldnt even be an option. I mean it screws with web pages so big nothing can be seen. And it just totally degrades the web. I dont design web pages for this resolution because why? I mean it looks so much different in that res and then crappy in the others.

So I ask the question, who thinks this resolution shouldnt be an option? And remember anyone that does just because others are harder to read. Remember there are large fonts.

Thanks.

I would respond by saying there should be a ban on putting any kind on restrictions on the internet but, I would be contradicting myself.

Let people design how and what they want and let others vote by giving repeat hits or avoiding altogether.

Many a good idea has been ruined by the first "There should be a rule against......"

i think they disabled this res in xp... i've never seen that res available on a computer that had xp installed.

How about for people who are unable to see small text and objects well? Not everyone can use 2048x1536 without being an inch away from their monitor :rolleyes:

I don't understand why people complain about having to make things work properly in most resolutions, it's quite simple actually, so-called "browser/resolution/color rules" and so fourth on splash pages are rather irritating and really turn me away from a site, I shouldn't have to change my colors/resolution in order to view a site well.

Edit: Let me clarify, actually, I don't design sites for 640x480 either, but I don't think the option should be taken away.

It shouldn't, unless you have a 10 inch monitor.

But if you do have a 10 inch monitor... ;)

We have a 'server' compuiter setup to provide only internet connection and to play around with. Until thiis year, it was running at 640*480 on a monitor i picked up at the junk shop for $2. It now has a 15" monitor i paid $2.50 for :D

Really there is an exageration on the 2468x1740 . I mean my vid card supports like 19000 but i dont view it like that way too small. And theres an option for large fonts so you dont have to be an inch away. Really all I am saying is that 800x600 wich is most common right now. Should be the lowest or at least recommended or something. And yes, I would never change my settings to view a site. But, with 1024x768 every page I have looked at has been fine.

Another thing with 640x480 is that content is almost impossible on that small of a page because there is no room. The res is too big and you have almost no room to build with.

Even Yahoo has redesigned their site for res 800x600

i dont think this should be a "RULE", it may be a useful guide.

but it all really depends on the targetted audience. if the site is targeted for graphics/computer geeks, then res should be high cuz they most like to have higher res monitors, whereas sites for grannies and people who only use their computer once a week, they most like to have 15" monitor so 640x480 is better option.

in all cases, i design mine at 780x600

I know from the stats gathered from my sites that most of my visitors are using 800x600 so I design for that. Few use 640x480 and those will just have to move their scroll bars a bit, I'm sure they're used to it. It is ridiculous to design for less than 800x600 because as others said, there is no room for anything. I personally use 1280x1024 most of the time but sometimes step down one notch. All my designs start in Photoshop as 700x500 images. I figure that gives me a bit of leeway:)

Originally posted by Metallimp89
Really there is an exageration on the 2468x1740 . I mean my vid card supports like 19000 but i dont view it like that way too small. And theres an option for large fonts so you dont have to be an inch away. Really all I am saying is that 800x600 wich is most common right now. Should be the lowest or at least recommended or something. And yes, I would never change my settings to view a site. But, with 1024x768 every page I have looked at has been fine.

Another thing with 640x480 is that content is almost impossible on that small of a page because there is no room. The res is too big and you have almost no room to build with.

The whole point of this I think is that you think 640x480 should be gotten rid of, right? Old people still deserve to have a low resolution. Not to stereotype or anything ;) :o

Back in my day, 640x480 was considered high-resolution. You have to remember, 640x480 exists because that is the highest VGA resolution. That allowed people who still had a VGA card to use Windows 95. SVGA wasn't very standardized while Windows 95 was being developed (standards existed, but not everyone followed them), so that allowed anyone with a SVGA card to enter safe mode without worrying about not being able to see anything because of bad video drivers. Also, some of the earlier and lower-end SVGA cards could only do high color in 640x480. Many people also had 14" or smaller monitors back then. While those aren't issues now, those were issues back when Windows 95 was being developed, and Windows 98 is just an update of Windows 95. Those are some reasons why 640x480 is an option.

Everything later than Windows 98 tries to use 800x600 by default, and many computer manufacturers are setting 800x600 or 1024x768 as the default resolution these days, so it's not much of an issue anyway. I'd say, don't worry about it so much.

I think if you aim at 800x600 to 1024x768 when building a site you won't have too many problems. If someone using 640x480 shows up then they're going to be used to having to scroll last and right anyway so your site won't stand out as being odd.

As far as banning the resolution, these things work themselves out. People don't need to design to 14.4k modems anymore either, though they're still in use. If you get a decent load time at 56k then most people would consider it a job well done

Greg Moore

I think all should be considered. Not everyone can afford the biggest and the best. There are millions who still use the same computer and small monitor that they have had for years. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

My daughter is now using my old 100Mhz, 13" monitor and surfs the web a lot more than me. It is still set at 640x480 because anything bigger looks too small. My site stats still have a good percentage using 640x480.

Yes, I agree. Nessacarly banning it. Well I dont know about that now. So, I will just keep designing my sites for 750x600 and leave it at that.

Thanks for all the opinions.

Not everyone can afford the biggest and the best.


Yeah but the majority can afford good-enough to view at better than 640x480. If it was me I wouldn't cater to the minority. My grandmother uses 640x480 because she has a hard time viewing at 800x600. But like others have said...she is used to scrolling around all day.

What about handheld browsers, which have an absolutely tiny res? A well designed webpage should be accessible (such as www.wasp.org, which is an excellent example). Don't think people don't yet use such devices - GPRS is now taking off (in europe at least), and more and more sites need to consider them.

Originally posted by ubergeek22
What about handheld browsers, which have an absolutely tiny res? A well designed webpage should be accessible (such as www.wasp.org, which is an excellent example). Don't think people don't yet use such devices - GPRS is now taking off (in europe at least), and more and more sites need to consider them.

Well designed webpage? It has advertisements and popups galore.

I think those sites that need to be accessable by handheld browsers should implement a handheld compatible version; others don't necessarily need to.

It's extremely painful to browse on a handheld browser (using my Palm as an example)... my Palm is connected to my LAN when in the docking station but there is no way I would browse on that.

--Shaun

I think sites should be created in 800x600 resolution. I mean, 640x480 is becoming very rare, and like posted earlier, my computer(WinXP) won't even let me display it. So for the select few people running on resolutions like that.. it just won't fit on their browser.. so what? All they have to do is scroll over.:)

Screen resolution is not necessarily the best way to measure, though. You're assuming that everyone views their browser window Maximised.

Some interesting stats from a large user base:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/July/res.php

It's interesting that from their stats there are more people using 640*480 than use Macs. Do you test your sites on Mac browsers? Do you consider Macs as "very rare"? Some would, Mac users would think it a slur ;) (I user neither).

It would be interesting if there are good statistics available publicly for browser size (as opposed to resolution) to better understand how the majority really view websites.

NO!
I know many people who use 640x480 on daily basis that is: Many games run on 640x480, and many will not work in 800*600.

For web design, 640x480 is outdated, but 640x480 should still be an option for people to use. I can list about 15 MODERN games that require 640x480.

Originally posted by ServerSonic
Few use 640x480 and those will just have to move their scroll bars a bit, I'm sure they're used to it.

This is exactly what I would have said. Those who use 640x480 are already used horizontal scrolls.

Originally posted by chirpy
It's interesting that from their stats there are more people using 640*480 than use Macs. Do you test your sites on Mac browsers? Do you consider Macs as "very rare"? Some would, Mac users would think it a slur ;) (I user neither).

I personally test my site on every operating system I have access to... I don't always have access to Mac but when I do; I test it on it.

Our site statistics say that there have been zero hits from Macintosh users since the beginning of the month. As a contrast:

Windows XP - 8729 (45.8%)
Windows Me - 3513 (18.4%)
Windows 98 - 2175 (11.4%)
Windows 2k - 1142 (6%)
Linux - 157 (0.8%)
Windows 95 - 2 (0%)
Others - 3311 (17.3%)

Others mainly includes Windows Media Player (Windows OS) and various search engines, etc.

--Shaun