Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

[Collectors-info]

Can any one give a good reason’s for moving up to & larger size than 800 wide?
I know you maybe able to get a little more on your visitors screen. But is it worth it. You can only read so much with two eyes & sometimes too much info in one area can lead to a touch of overload. I personally find it easier to read from a 800 format & don’t mind the blank space to either side at all.
On having a quick look around the net, I find a lot of the big companies still stick with the 800 format. I can only assume they feel that it is not prevalent to up the size as from 800 as yet. I have noticed this especially with banks & am not sure if this is to cater for some of the small laptops & the higher use of tablets these days for online banking.
Would appreciate your views

Small list of some big names that stick with the 800 format. Naturally starting with the leaders of this size.

http://www.vodahost.com/

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/

http://www.natwest.com/

https://www.bankofamerica.com/index.jsp

http://www.aa.com/aa/worldwideSites.do

http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html

http://www.fbi.gov/

http://www.toysrus.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryId=2255956

http://www.walmart.com/

http://www.walmartcanada.ca/wps-portal/storelocator/index.jsp

http://www.tesco.com/grocery/

http://www.canada.gc.ca/main_e.html

http://www.airforce.com/

http://www.usps.com/

http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/home

http://www.austemb.org/

Cheers.

[LadyEye]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

I'm with you Chris ... '800 it will be probably for many more years yet ...

[Collectors-info]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Hi, it was only that a few members on the forum had mentioned it was the old size now days & was wondering what was in the thinking behind the comments.
And also why so many big names stick with the 800 size.
Who says size doesn’t matter. lol

Oh well! Keep them coming.

[LadyEye]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Here are some opinions I've found Chris ... and according to this opinion we have until the end of 2007 until we would likely make a change ... so many more years is coming quicker, lol

Have a look ...

http://www.sixshootermedia.com/blog/design-for-800x600/

[Vasili]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Here are some opinions I've found Chris ... and according to this opinion we have until the end of 2007 until we would likely make a change ... so many more years is coming quicker, lol

Have a look ...

http://www.sixshootermedia.com/blog/design-for-800x600/

A couple of things you may wish to consider:

1. php and CSS dynamic sites are gaining popularity, and the static nature of page width itself is under fire (size does not matter, as the sites fill the screen by default);

2. More and more websites will be accessed by non-traditional means (non-PC) such as cell phones, tablets, game interfaces, and even cars. This adds another design element to the soup, as before websites were displayed "abbreviated" style, and now they actually translate dynamic sites to fit the medium (smaller screens) to offer a more true-to-life representation of the original website;

3. The majority of websites independently created use templates of some sort, all which have been designed with a more traditional 765 wide formatting......although it may be fun to muse about how opinions (as cited above) might actually influence or create a trend, I personally feel it unlikely that an "across-the-board" movement will be seen soon, as it would require a whole new round of template production, purchase, and installation as well.

I do think, however, that we should all bear in mind that our 800w sites will likely be viewed in the most popular 1028 width, and as such, our overall layouts and design parameters should definitely incorporate this perspective with regard to layout balance, construct, and logical presentations (including navigation and use of graphical/visual elements), which explains why a few break-through artists are tinkering with richer backgrounds -- even some that change! *Read in here the growing use of animation and video, which is now demanded by retail, the drive of the net....

IMO

[Bethers]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

It's very important to know your customers and why you would have a wider site. I have chosen to go wider than 800 - and my conversion rate did NOT drop - in fact it is up on one of the sites I changed to 1000 width.

I also was careful in how I did it.

Remember, at one time, the width everyone had to be was 600 - and that is now obsolete. 800 is losing more and more daily - but is still there.

The same as the fluid templates - there are plusses and minusses for each. You need to weigh what the effects will be for YOUR site. I chose to not use a fluid template - as I have it on a site that is still on another host (hopefully not much longer) and do not like the way it displays on some screens. On my sister (who still chooses to use an 800 width resolution) screen, that site looks terrible - and on someone with the widest screen, I like it about as much. On 1024 to 1280 - it looks just fine. That I'll get rid of because I've doubled the amount of people it effects. (Which is why you'll also see that the major players haven't switched to fluid designs).

I have noticed that some of the major players have switched some things they do from 800 - for example - Yahoo mail has Yahoo mail beta - and it cannot be used on an 800 resolution screen. So, some major players are making changes up to the higher resolutions most of us now use.

If you want to keep the site universally so virtually everyone has no side scroll, then, yes, you need to actually stay at about 780 - because if you design at 800 - you'll even then have a tiny bit of scroll.

[Collectors-info]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Thanks all, there really are some conundrums to think about. Must admit that I can’t loose with the 780 & some of the 1000+ pages tend to sometime have too much info on them. Maybe the 780 will force me to keep it simple for a year or 2 yet.

[Vasili]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

The same as the fluid templates - there are plusses and minusses for each. You need to weigh what the effects will be for YOUR site. I chose to not use a fluid template.... (Which is why you'll also see that the major players haven't switched to fluid designs).

I have noticed that some of the major players have switched some things they do from 800 - for example - Yahoo mail has Yahoo mail beta - and it cannot be used on an 800 resolution screen. So, some major players are making changes up to the higher resolutions most of us now use.

If you want to keep the site universally so virtually everyone has no side scroll, then, yes, you need to actually stay at about 780 - because if you design at 800 - you'll even then have a tiny bit of scroll.

I take definitve stance in opposition to your statements, Beth.

The "major players" have in fact always been quite keen on using Dream with Flash, php, and aspx sites (and have been the ones with the budgets to start from scratch to do so), which they initially understood to be a means of security and site integrity (preventiung hackers, stripping, etc.) as well as providing the look and feel that would communicate to visitors that they were indeed, serious about their internet fulfillments! The use of dynamic backgrounds and "fluidity" has played a pivotal role in the very design of their sites, from the colors the used to the layout they dictated!
* And, if you look carefully, you will see these same deep pockets now moving more and more into Flash-based sites (that have been truly SEO'd from everything starting with the code itself to the little "helps" few really know about -- more "proof" later!) as they incorporate more video and RSS to satisfy the growing demand for visual excellence!
Your comment could not have been more off base in that regard!

Next, your comment on "the major players" moving away from 800 benchmarks is false. As I mentioned above, the standard of 90% of any templates is 765, 768, and rarely the 780 you mentioned, all purposefully to fit universally within the out-of-the-box formatting browsers still frustrate users with ...... the only thing most have done in the last 3 tumultuous years is move from the "lock-left" and into a centered page position, again allowing the viewers' browsers to maximize the optimal presentation of their sites......this too, is indication that far more "majors" will be getting used to first php/aspx dynamics until they settle on how best to incorporate more visual dynamics such as video, swf, or even Fusion with Flash (if not a true Flash site, which they have concluded offers more "protection" with regard to registered or copyright elements).
* Your citing Yahoo's application "beta" as proof means nothing....it is an "inside" application that is still in evaluation, correct?

If anything, the perponderance of the internet "majors" have re-inforced the predicted and much discussed trend of moving from Dream (HTML) to the desired CSS+HTML, php, and Flash/Fusion sites, to accommodate the demand for visitor interaction and enhanced converson, now that the questions of optimization have been resolved acceptably and the stability of design has proven more maintenence-friendly.


Although I understand your intent, the way you presented your concept and the manner in which you presented your comments was really more counter-productive than necessary, and would tend to influence many to formulate their understandings unfairly (or incorrectly altogether) had I not felt compelled to reply thus.

[Bethers]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

I don't want or intend to get into a fight or argument here. I will admit to a typo - where I said 780, I meant 760 - which IS the correct number to stay within to design for an 800 wide site - and if necessary, I can provide links to sites to show that.

As to fluid designs - you do NOT see them on bank sites, or on any of the major sites that Chris listed above that I clicked on.

I never said a word about php or css or dream or flash or video or rss - all of which are being used by many of the sites that Chris mentioned - without going to fluid designs.

That does not mean I am against fluid designs - I was simply saying, truthfully, that there are negatives and positives for them - the same as there are negatives and positives for designing sites on a static page - at a width wider than 800. And just a FYI - in 2001 5% of users were still on screens 640 wide - and we no longer need to design for that - haven't for several years - and that is the direction the 800 wide screen is going - rather quickly now.

[Karen Mac]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

I personally use both fluid and static templates, but I also have my monitor set at a higher resolution, however, I do try to view my sites with different sizes and different browsers to maintain a good looking, visually appealing site.

One reason I might go with a wider design is to make sure my content is the center, no matter WHAT resolution... side bars other than navigation I usually consider extra real estate. So i try to make sure all navigation, and the middle content is within the 800 capacity.

Css is definately going to be a big player, in layouts and designs, and some flash, ive yet to see a total ecommerce site running all the bells and whistles of flash other than an intro and maybe a header area, that dont look trashy, to my mind, and also detract from sales, however, corporate presences, SEO and Design sites can get off with alot more.

Yes ive seen sites in flash, but that are still mostly html driven or php driven, and very little of the FLASH look and interaction. But I do expect to see more of it, as robots and SE get smarter.

I think we will see alot of changes, including page width, that will will be argumentative issues.

Karen

[zuriatman]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Nice arguments. I would agree to larger is better and found 800 to be wanting as you would have to squeeze everthing into a constricted space. Most of the major players are now switching to what you see is what you get, meaning if U use a small screen everthing is small and if you use a larger screen all images and fonts are larger. As Varsili pointed out the display resizes automatically to the viewing screen. This in itself is good as analogue display monitors are dirt cheap and even lcd displays are getting cheaper by the day. I am using a 17" AIC LCD flat screen monitor which cost me M$650.00 which is USD 185.70. Eventhough I have a good laptop, I still prefer to do all my work on my PC simply because it is faster and the display is larger. More and more people can afford to buy larger displays for their computer and I would think that eventually the sales of larger displays will supercede that of the 15" screens and manufacturers will focus on 17" and above to beef up their sales. It will be difficult to cater for every need and to please everybody.
Why waste the spaces on the two sides, you can fit a lot of ads and affiliate links into the two empty spaces.
So I say larger is BEST.

[Collectors-info]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Hi, I would totally agree, but the BV site builder doesn’t have the facility of fluidity formatting to size to what ever screen that it is presented with. So if someone is set their site up for the wider format, the smaller format users will be left with lots of side scroll. Will also be interesting to see how tablets & similar formats take off & how to start catering for this type of user. Personally, I hate small screens & it would drive me made using one. But things are becoming smaller & smaller more portable, so there will always be some type of smaller style of screen.
It now makes me think how long it will be before lap tops & alike will have projectors fitted & wont even have the need for a screen.

[zuriatman]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Hey Chris,

Why dont you work on it and invent something like "Dtoo projecting Pricess Leia's [cant remember the spelling] image in Starwars. You will be a billionaire overnight.

He he!

[vodafan]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

800 or wider? depends who are your customers? if you sell to the upper-middle class, go wide - probably most of them already got those big, fancy, 16:9 monitors. if you aim for the general public, stay 800

[Bethers]

Re: Stick to 800 wide! Or go larger?

Vodafan, the size of the monitor has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution they view. And if you read above or clicked any of the links, you'll see most of the general public are no longer using 800 wide. Times, they are a changin.