1920 x 1200 on Mac Cinema display latest version
1600x1200 on PC Samsung 213T
800×600
1024×768
1120×832
1152×864
1152×900
1280×1024
1280×800
1366×768
1440×900
1400×1050
1600×1024
1680×1050
MAC
PC
Other
1920 x 1200 on Mac Cinema display latest version
1600x1200 on PC Samsung 213T
Last edited by Bob McCarthy; 22-Nov-2006 at 11:09.
Final result ( just in case anyone is interested).
HTML Code:Resolution Used Percent 800×600 2 2.78 1024×768 15 20.83 1120×832 2 2.78 1152×864 5 6.94 1152×900 0 0.00 1280×1024 21 29.17 1280×800 1 1.39 1366×768 0 0.00 1440×900 2 2.78 1400×1050 1 1.39 1600×1024 4 5.56 1600x1200 8 11.11 1680×1050 2 2.78 1920x1200 3 4.17 2560x1600 1 1.39 other 5 6.94
Last edited by robc; 23-Nov-2006 at 06:59.
One more 1600x1200 on all 4 PCs, 1400x1050 on laptop.
Makes a farce of all those recommendations to keep your websites at 700 px... seems like 1000 is now the norm.
Regards,
Len
Len Metcalf
Leonard Murray Metcalf BA Dip Ed MEd
Len's gallery lenmetcalf.com
Lens School
Lens Journal
Another vote for 1920x1200 on a 23" Cinema Display
Not quite. These figures are heavily skewed towards large format photographers and those using the higher resolution screens such as 1600x1200 are not your average user.
Real world figures for your "average" browser resolution are not often available and where they are, they are often misleading. My own figures which are skewed towards UK users, indicate 10% using 800x600, 40% using 1024x768 and the rest higher resolutions. If you had an online shop 800x600 would be perfectly acceptable design parameters for your web site. But for a photography site, 800x600 puts severe limitations on the size of an image which can be displayed on screen. So it depends on what your site is about and also your target audience. For example if your target audience is an imaging professional, then it is highly likely they will be using a high resolution screen so 1280x1024 may be acceptable. My own view is that for photography, 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator but it is still quite workable to design for 800x600. But if the majority of your users are then 1600x1200 the images will look very small on screen. Advice to design for 800x600 screens is stil valid, but only to a point.
[edit]
its perfectly feasible to design a site which picks up the users screen resolution and serves up images of the appropriate size.
[/edit]
Last edited by robc; 24-Nov-2006 at 11:34.
I'm trying out google analytics on my site, and it gives you stats on the screen resolutions of your visitors. I was surprised by the results ... only a percent or two using monitors smaller than 1024 x 768.
My guess is that people who visit photo sites are a skewed sample of all internet users.
1600x1200 and 870x1152 depending on which computer I'm using.
Given so many high end photography users here, it is surpising so few are running at 1200x1600 or more. I'm at 1280x1024 at the moment on an old 21 inch Viewsonic CRT mainly due to some OS issues the last time I upgraded. Before that for a few years I was 1200x1600 that I liked more for Photoshop but which is generally too small for web text. Certainly being able to view a large image in as much detail as possible is an advantage when evaluating images. ...David
Last edited by David_Senesac; 24-Nov-2006 at 20:27.
NEC SpectraView 2090. 1600x1200 for photo editing. 1024x768 for web design and general stuff.
Bookmarks