[Sigia-l] functional screen resolution

[adamya ashk]

On 6/28/05, Gray, Laurie <LGray at knowledgestorm.com> wrote:
> At the same time, we've seen a number of sites (Yahoo, for example) go back
> to an 800x600 design. The days of "1024, degrading gracefully to 800" seem
> to be gone. The question I have is, "why?"

The perception is that the technical effort is smaller for fixed width
and it's easier to design visually. It really depends on the type of
site and content. I know that extemely long lines of text become
tiring beyond a certain character count. But on the web things really
are different because of the variety of monitor sizes and resolutions
(as you mentioned) and more specifically due to what the user's doing.

For example, I can't remember what resolution the Paypal site is built
for. My guess is 800x600. But if they even made is for a smaller
resolution it would still work. The tranactional nature what you do at
paypal ensures that.

I was part of a study once where we collected active window
resolutions and found that actual screen resolution (window size -
chrome etc=viewable area of page) was something very different than
the standard 800x600. This meant that even users on 800 did not have
the window maximized. In this case should you make the commitment to
not apply a 'variable width' design?

However, I would not take this as a general rule because this study
was for specific content and segmentation.

I have also observed/ran 100s of user tests over the past 3 years and
I have to come question the concept of a FOLD and what's visible. Many
types of content and tasks defy the fold and users tend 'not' to read
instructional text no matter where you put it. :-)

That said the NewYork Times is an intersting case study. The homepage
is at 800 but further on the content is variable width.