Up until last year I still had a nokia 5210 phone. I couldn’t recieve photo messages and couldn’t do much more than call, text or use a calculator on it. Should the rest of the world stop sending photo messages because there are still people with old phones? Should app developers consider those that haven’t got a phone that is compatible with their apps? Should we be designing our websites so that they display correctly on a nokia 5210? GAWD is a dated organisation and unless it does something about this, it is labelling it’s members as idiots!

[…] The reason so many clients ASK for wider layouts is because the standard computer screen sold now is at LEAST 1024×768 […]

Of course that might change what with netbooks becoming all the rage. the Google Chrome OS due out next year help power that movement further.

In the end though it comes down to your target audience.
When I design a photography or design site I ignore IE6, design at 1024×768 minimum, use a lot of graphics use javascript and try to make the site as accessible as possible without losing visual ‘prettiness’.
When I design a private companies website targeted at other private companies I ask if IE6 is important to them, design at 1024×768 max, make it accessible and focus on google SEO.
When I design for the government’s seniors ministry I use 800×600, fully support IE6, am as accessible as possible and some, and also follow all of their protocol about design requirements.

You have to think of who is going to be visiting, and what your end goals are. 800×600 is just not usually practical, and fluid can be just as bad.

Interesting debate you have going on. I visit alot of our clients personally to see how they are getting on and so far I have yet to come accross a screen set up for 800×600, but what about their clients?

I’m interested to discover what the truth is re this debate.

I think a poll is in order when I get 5 mins.

My gut feeling is you can’t please everyone it’s a bit like SEO who do you optimise for Google or Yahoo?

Persoanlly I’d rather please the 92% quoted here, but who knows just maybe the money is in the 8%.

I too have family who ‘must’ use a smaller screen size so they can perform the tasks they want to so am firmly on the side of the smaller resolution support. But that isn’t the only reason…

Dean states “It’s also like saying all cars should go from 0-60 in 2 seconds so that everyone can get up to 60 as fast as each other. But some people don’t want such a powerful car.”

So advocating that a less powerful car should be an option, yet is trying to argue that a less powerful screen resolution should ‘not’ be an option. You can’t argue both sides of this coin at the same time.

The whole thing about accessibility is in ‘not disabling’ the user. If someone is in complete control of perfect faculties but you prevent them from doing something the way they want to, you are not ‘not enabling’ someone, you are in fact actively ‘disabling’ someone.

Now the 800 pixel wide argument seems to be gathering weight because the average user is now using a 1024 resolution so drop the 800 support. Think about it, don’t just dribble the argument like you need someone to wipe your chin.

If someone is using a brand spanking new machine, the likelihood is they will be using Windows Vista. Love it or loathe it, it’s the new kid on the block that is shoved down everybody’s throat.

Windows Vista happens to have a neat little application called Vista Sidebar (or Windows Sidebar or whatever else you want to call it) which can be permanently on the ’side’ of the screen. (can anyone see where this is going yet?)

If a user starts with a 1024 wide screen and then has a permanent sidebar that takes up 150 (or whatever) pixels of screen real estate width… what are you left with?

I hope that makes my views on the matter crystal and I apologise if it was a bit of a long post.

I work in an office environment and I can tell you first hand most people do not have a clue how to use the browser other than back and forward buttons. So to expect everyone to understand the options available to them as far as resizing the screen or changing the font size is a lot to expect. A lot of them still link that the IE icon is the “WEB” and don’t get the Firefox icon gets you to the same place. This goes for young and old, some people just don’t get technology no matter how much you show them.

The average user wants to turn the computer on do what they have to. Just like turning on their car they just want it to work. No hassles, no side scrolling (which I hate! no matter how well a site is designed or may have the info I need, if I have to side scroll I’m outa there!)No font resizing etc… go to the site and it looks good on their screen, easy to read and navigate that is what the average user wants.

Designers and developers need to remember or be aware that most people don’t have a clue and some don’t have the time to learn something else when they have to get something done, they don’t want to play around with the programs they need or the browser they use. They don’t enjoy computers they are just means to the end. Just like getting in your car and driving it doesn’t mean you are a gear head!

So Don’t forget you are designing for people that don’t know what you do!
thanks for the rant…….
Q~

I believe that it is an unfair criteria to be used by accessites. They are pretty much labelling sites which are more than 600px wide as inaccessible regardless of the purpose of the site. Would you put wheelchair access to a boxing ring? Probably not, because it’s extremely doubtful that someone that can’t walk is going to be getting in to a boxing ring. But if that disabled person decides they want to do boxing, they will be perfectly aware of the difficulties and wouldn’t expect every boxing ring to have that access.

Sometimes you can overdo accessibility to the point where it lowers usability. e.g. access keys causing havoc because they conflict with browser keys. Yes new browsers are fixing this problem, but, like the still existent 800×600 users, there are still IE5 + 6 users etc…

As I said before, I am happy to see people are dedicated to making the web accessible, but one persons word on the matter cannot be law. Accessibility criterion should really only be measured by the absolute right or wrong…e.g. not hiding important text in an img without alt tag etc.. and leave the opinion related parts to an independent human to consider along with common sense.

Keep up the good work though…I like anything like this when it can spark a debate!

I have to say, I came across this site and was over the moon to find such a site until I read this. It is a disgrace that people can dictate what a standard should be with such generalization and opinion related judgements.

So I take it your not going to read my writing anymore or you’re going to think less of me because I wrote something you disagree with?!

And yes, stats are a waste of time. Unless of course you are designing a site for a particular business and you take the stats from another companies website in that exact same business.

I have to say, I came across this site and was over the moon to find such a site until I read this. It is a disgrace that people can dictate what a standard should be with such generalization and opinion related judgements.