January 01, 2002
URL:http://drdobbs.com/the-myth-of-800x600/184412392
Reader Poll Designing web pages for wide audiences can be a challenging task. Which type of table positioning do you use?WebReview wants to know! |
Developing fixed-size Web pages is a fundamentally flawed practice. Not only does it result in Web pages that remain at a constant size regardless of the user's browser size, but it fails to take advantage of the medium's flexibility. Nonetheless, Web site creators continue to develop fixed pages.
The current standard page size is 800x600 pixels. Some sites even explicitly state this with the disclaimer "this site best viewed at 800x600." If part of a page falls outside the viewable browsing area, scroll bars appear. Surfing the Web with a smaller screen resolution, for instance at 640x480, reduces the user experience to a frustrating scrolling exercise. (Generally, horizontal scrolling is much worse than vertical.)
Most computers allow users to set the resolution of their choice for a reason. For some types of work it's more efficient to use a high screen resolution, which optimizes desktop workspace. Other people need to work at lower resolutions, which enlarges the display. This choice is independent of the actual size of the monitor hardware: Someone with a 21" monitor can have a display resolution of 640x480.
The reason why 800x600 has been adopted as the standard Web page size is clear: Average screen resolutions of Web surfers can easily be obtained. Here are the latest statistics worldwide:
(Source: statmarket.com February 17, 2001 based on a sample size of 50,465,595 Web sites; numbers rounded to the nearest .5%.)
These statistics are used to justify layout sizes for Web pages. Currently, about 93% of the Web population can view a page at 800x600 without unnecessary scrolling. The result: A majority of sites are created to meet this assumption.
Screen resolution, however, is the wrong statistic to use to determine the optimum display size for Web pages.
A more appropriate metric would be viewable browsing area, or the area within a user's browser that a Web page actually occupies. Viewable browsing area isn't the same as screen resolution. Many factors lead to a discrepancy between the two measurements:
Any or all of these factors can reduce viewing areas. Web page designers often account for this by developing pages that are about 770x430. Still, such pages are fixed and don't fit many user-end settings and conditions.
There's little published information about average viewable browsing areas. This is surprising since these statistics can be gathered easily with a simple JavaScript function.
A comparison of screen resolutions and average viewable browsing areas reveals significant differences. Generally, as monitor resolutions increase, average viewable browsing areas tend to level off. The chart below demonstrates this relationship.
Screen resolutions indicate a specific technology and are therefore fixed points on a scale. But measurements of viewable browsing area fall on a continuum and reflect user behavior. For example, a user in one study had a screen resolution of 2560x1024, but a viewable browsing area of 628x623. (Source: Real-world browser size stats, part II.)
Take a look at how the people in your office browse. Do they always maximize their browsers? Do they use sidebars or companion tools? Do people have multiple browsers or applications open at smaller sizes and jump back and forth between them? On average, users don't surf with viewable browsing areas equal to their screen resolution.
When developing Web sites we should accommodate a continuum of unpredictable human behaviors. Unfortunately, the real a strength of the Webits flexibilityis often seen as a disadvantage. Attempting to control exactly what the user sees is futilethe final product varies due to a wide number of client-end factors.
The impulse to prescribe all aspects of layout is a leftover ritual from print media, where designers carefully position each page element. But on the Web the practice of defining a standard canvas size before design begins is fundamentally inappropriate.
Viewing pages fixed at 800x600 on a monitor with a maximum resolution of 800x600 is like reading the newspaper on the airplane: You can do it, but it's inconvenient and unwieldy. Or, imagine if television were the same: Owners of large TVs would have to watch their favorite shows within a 12x12-inch square on their 3-foot screen; and owners of small TV sets might miss half of the picture. We wouldn't tolerate this, yet it's been accepted on the Web.
Designing Web sites for all sizes seems like an impossible task. Generally, the thought of accommodating a wide range of viewable browsing areas is frightening. Web page creators continue to insist on absolute positioning of page elements.
An alternative to absolute positioning is relative positioning. This allows pages to contract and expand to fit a variety of viewable browsing areas.
Consistency comes from the relationship of page elements to one another. A navigation bar, for example, can always appear in the upper right corner, regardless of browser size. The user experience might be slightly different from visitor to visitor, but consistent enough to convey the same message.
Many sites have attempted to tackle the problem of variable browsing areas, but there's still room for growth and improvement. Here are some solutions, old and new.
The use of fixed-size pages is yet another example of our tendency to focus on technology rather than user behavior. The most commonly available statistics are for screen resolution, a measurement of a certain technology. More relevant, though, is the user-specified viewable browsing area.
But viewable browsing area isn't standard and can even vary within a single session for a given user. Consequently, a range of sizes must be considered when developing Web pages. In a time when "one-to-one" is all the rage, it doesn't make sense to create "one-to-many" layouts. In the end, the entire user experience should be one-to-one at all times.
With an increase of alternative browsing devises on the horizon, such as WebTV, public access kiosks, video gaming systems, e-Books, small handheld devices, and other nonstandard applications, the continuum of viewable browsing sizes will only expand. Never before has the demand for flexibility been greater. Solutions developed on the Web now will affect and inform future design. Ultimately the success or failure of a digital product lies not on a deeper understanding of specific technology, but on how that technology is used.
James has an M.A. in Information Science and is the Head of Information Architecture at Razorfish, Hamburg.
Controlling Table Layout with CSS2
WebReview.com's Browser Guide
Terms of Service | Privacy Statement | Copyright © 2024 UBM Tech, All rights reserved.