I know, I know, I should have shrugged off the whole “we have to worry about those poor people with 640x480 screens” thing long ago. But I sincerely believed, all suggestion to the contrary aside, that there were lots of them out there. For the past couple of days I’ve been running the excellent Mint traffic analyzer on my site, and one of the neato charts it produces is this one:
Obviously it’s time to stop worrying about 640x480. Indeed it’s almost time to set 800x600 aside too.
About This Blog
I am Peter Rukavina and this is my blog. I am a writer, letterpress printer, and a curious person.
To learn more about me, read my /now, look at my bio, listen to audio I’ve posted, read presentations and speeches I’ve written, or get in touch (peter@rukavina.net is the quickest way).
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of posts, an RSS feed of comments, or a podcast RSS feed that just contains audio posts. You can also receive a daily digests of posts by email.
Comments
What about PDAs? What are
What about PDAs? What are their pixel dimensions, and don’t you care for us (albeit infrequent) PDA users? The PDA is an established technology of the future, or so they promised us.
How certain are you of the
How certain are you of the results?
I would think 800 x 600 is worth designing for: even a 1024 x 768 display won’t be entirely used for a browser window all the time.
As for Oliver’s plea: isn’t that what style sheets are for?
There have been a lot of
There have been a lot of sites sprouting with 1024 (see the new Onion design - its actually a bit annoying - even with large resolution displays (I’m one of those 1920x1200 people much of the time), it doesn’t mean I run a browser much larger than 800x600.
I’m not sure if this is
I’m not sure if this is relevent, but i would guess that the demographic group that visits your site is composed of techie hipsters who are far more likely to have a higher-resoltuion monitor than folks who might visit ebay, for instance.
Add new comment