[Sigia-l] browser resolution, NOT screen resolution

[James Kalbach]

> Does anyone have some data on browser window width?
> Or know where I can get it?

The only published source that I’m aware of was compiled a while ago:
<http://evolt.org/article/Real_World_Browser_Size_Stats_Part_II/20/2297/index.html>

Since then, screen resolutions and monitor sizes (measures of
technologies) have become both larger *and* smaller, but I think this
analysis is very telling and still relevant to browsing area and browser
size (measures of behavior).

(Keep in mind that viewable browsing area, browser size, screen resolution
and monitor size can be very independent of one another. (See
<http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=2684/nam1012432092/index.html>))

I’ve seen other sources of data to confirm this, but these are
unfortunately not published. It would indeed be great to have more
supporting data.

Through informal polling, I’ve seen about a 50% split between users with a
screen resolution of 1024x768 who maximize their browsers and those who
don’t. This is anecdotal, but a still shows the independence of measures
(screen resolution v. browser size), particularly at larger screen
resolutions. Of course, Mac users tend not to maximize browsers to match
screen size at all.

In dealing with a right-hand navigation, which I would encourage (see
<http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i01/Kalbach/>), it is obviously
critical to determine the point at which horizontal scrolling starts for
folks with smaller viewable browsing areas. A width of 640 seems smaller
than necessary these days, but still might be considered depending on the
situation. And don’t forget how the layout scales up, as well. Generally,
I like to create layouts that work at viewable widths *smaller* than 780
(so the layout is not so cramped at 800x600) to widths of about 1024 (for
a screen resolution of 1024x768 with a maxed browser). This seems like
relatively "safe" and generous range to me.

A colleague of mine came up with the following solution, for example,
which scrunches down quite small without being cramped and still works at
1024 (though perhaps with a little too much white space):
<http://www.relevantive.de/>

Think “ranges of viewable browsing areas,” not “one size fits all.”

Cheers,
Jim