The Death of the 640×480 Resolution

I don't know exactly when it happened, but it happened. Almost no one is using the 640×480 resolution on their monitors anymore. I say almost because I know of at least one person that still uses it, and he is a moron.

By far, the most common screen resolution in use today is 1024×768. The numbers for resolutions higher than this continue to grow every day. Why is it then that way too many websites (and themes for common web site applications) are optimized for 800×600? I mean, 800×600 was the most common resolution for a very short span of time. Judging from my research, 1024×768 will eventually be relegated to an uncommon resolution as well.

Web site designers, I have advice for you. Stop using fixed-width screen designs and start using fluid-width screen designs. Test your displays in higher resolutions as well as lower resolutions. It's the simple way to future-proof your designs. Oh, and if you need help, get the Web Developer add-on for Firefox and test with the resize option frequently.

That is, unless you LIKE to reinvent the wheel over and over?

February 8th, 2007 By RT Cunningham | Categories: Website Design | Tags: browsers, monitors, resolution |

Full Article Feed |

Summary Article Feed |

Comments Feed |

Full Articles by Email | Respond | Trackback URL

Pingback: More Than Scratch The Surface » Blog Archive » A Host Of Changes (Not A Change Of Host) on September 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am

[...] I've been threatening to do this for a while. Actually it's only been 6 weeks (seems longer) since I said I'd do this in the comments of Untwisted Vortex's The Death of the 640×480 Resolution. [...]

Chris on February 28th, 2007 at 4:17 am (Reply)

Someone else who agrees with me!

I use fluid width templates on both my blogs, and the only problems reported to me were from a person using IE6 at 800X600.

Frankly I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it, as my stats bear out what you've said - 98% of my visitors use 1024 or greater, with 78% using Firefox. The future is now people!

RT Cunningham on February 28th, 2007 at 4:22 am (Reply)

I'm glad there's at least one other person out there that thinks along the same lines as I do.

goldcoaster on March 15th, 2007 at 6:15 am (Reply)

Back when I was a Uni student I had to make sure an web design assignments would be for 640×480 as they said that was the standard most people used.

Most blogs seem to be for 800×600, including mine. I don't mind that as it is a better layout for reading in my opinion.
But templates for 'real' sites seem to be the low resolution - especially Flash based sites (hate them). Flash can be made to auto size depending on the screen resolution but most seem to be tiny sized.

http://goldcoaster.wordpress.com

RT Cunningham on March 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am (Reply)

They may seem to be for 800×600, but they're not. You're seeing the content section as 800×600 but the full layout appears to be 1024×768.

linus on March 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm (Reply)

One reason, that I think is a very good reason, to make a webdesign at a fixed width is that it is easier for a person to read shorter lines of text. For example as in a newspaper where articles always are lined up in columns. I don't remember all the facts, but I belive it is easier to move your eyes up and down, than left to right. Furthermore, it's easier to find the beginning of the next line if the lines aren't too long. Personally I almost never surf with the browser maximized so the only time I am troubled by this design issue is when a fixed width site is too wide to fit in the window, so I have to scroll sideways…

RT Cunningham on March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm (Reply)

You have it backwards (not your fault). It's easier to read if you don't have to switch lines as often. The argument for a fluid width is that it adjust for YOUR browser, not fixed to what the designer prefers.

Rex Dart on March 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm (Reply)

It's because technology is making larger monitors cheaper; you see less 640×480 because you see less 12" monitors being sold with computers and also because more computers are able to output (far) beyond 640×480 now. Twelve years ago, things WERE different. That's a long-ass time in computer land.

TheFluffyOne on March 20th, 2007 at 7:08 pm (Reply)

I appreciate that the majority of your visitors are using devices with high-resolution displays, but what about those using mobile devices such as PDAs, mobile phones, Sony PSPs and such?

Sue on June 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 am (Reply)

From a design point of view, I think a full width layout is less attractive and I am less likely to linger on such sites, unless I am already keen on the content. I am viewing this at 1024 though RT so that does not apply to your site of course.

I would only use full width if the content was such that the page was cluttered without. I would then use more columns rather than wide lines, for ease of reading.

As far as PDA's and Mobiles are concerned a different style sheet can be applied to them quite easily.

Being able to edit this is nifty. Do you use a plugin for this or is it a standard feature? I am not too familiar with Wordpress.

RT Cunningham on June 2nd, 2007 at 4:05 am (Reply)

Thanks, Sue,

The problem I see is that a lot of people shove too much stuff in a fixed width display, when there's more screen real estate to be had. Having said that, I've seen some really good fixed width themes done right.

I wonder if there's a way to alter templates to accommodate PDAs and mobile devices. I haven't checked into that yet.

Stephen Cronin on August 6th, 2007 at 12:05 am (Reply)

My site is designed for 800 * 600, which I had assumed was still commonly used. However, Google Analytics is telling me that less than 1% of my visitors use this and the rest are using a higher resolution. I was pretty surprised by this and it means that I am wasting valuable screen real estate.

I'll probably change my site to fixed width 1024 x 768 and add an extra sidebar column.

I know you'll say I should use a fluid width, but I prefer fixed width, purely because then I know exactly how it will appear.

RT Cunningham on August 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am (Reply)

Just because I prefer the fluid width doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone. I looked at my stats as well. A big zero for the old 640×480 and about 20% using 800×600. But that's okay. If you design it for 1024×768, and you have three columns, the right column won't be visible to the 800×600 crowd. Various heat maps show that the top area, above the fold and the left column are the most frequently viewed.

Believe it or not, even though I use a fluid width, I check it at 1024×768 to make sure it looks good, since that's the most used resolution right now. I used the resize option from the Firefox Web Developer add-on to check it. Every once in a while, I use my son's laptop to check because it's set at 1024×768 (mine is widescreen and changing the resolution gives a warped sense of extra real estate).

hari on August 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pm (Reply)

RT, I used to have fluid width before, but I couldn't make attractive headers with that format, so I switched to a fixed width theme.

What do you think about my current fixed width theme?

RT Cunningham on August 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pm (Reply)

Your theme looks good, Hari. I would have said something if it didn't. It's better than most other fixed width themes because it isn't a canned theme from somewhere else.
2. hari on August 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pm (Reply)
  
  I used to like fluid themes, but getting a good header image is very difficult because images are fixed in size and they don't work too well with a fluid theme.
  
  On the other hand, on a theme like yours, fluid works well because you have three columns. On a two-column layout fixed width looks better because in a wide-screen monitor, 2-column fluid width becomes too stretched.
  
  Of course, what a majority of people don't realize that fluid width is not equal to 100% brower width. You can set any percentage width for fluid themes so that it does not cover the entire width of the browser window.