Risk it against statistics?

I have always been a careful web designer, making sure that my code is standard BUT that it also works flawlessly on other browsers. But today I'm on a pinch, my client wants me to redesign their site and make it bigger, but the old site has been done with people using 800x600 in mind. Now I know not alot of people use 800x600 anymore, but quick peek at the statistics of the site, out of 100% there are 20.8% which are 800x600, the rest are larger with 10x7 being the most popular one. So, should I risk it even when there is almost one quarter of viewers suffering from the desicion? Yeah I know, I could go with a fluid template, but yeah, let's face it, 90% of fluid templates suck ass and the rest of them are spot on when there is alot of information on the site, but this site won't have that much info to justify the fluid site. So, what is your pro/semi-pro view to the problem?

giginger

The way I see it is that you're in a position to explain to your client why making it bigger than it's current size would be destrimental. Show them statistics and try to attribute a cost factor to this. Failing that it might be time to bite the bullet and go for a fluid layout. Shame that, as you say, there's no good ones.

stuart

Take the money and run.

timberford

it depends on the target audience really. recently at work we designed a site for a company that fit bespoke home cinema systems. these systems start at around £20,000... now we felt the decision to design for a 1024 screen res was an easy one in that situation. make it to 1024x768 if that's what the client wants...

Minisweeper

how anyone still uses 800x600 is way beyond me. I *finally* got rid of all the 15" crt's at work last month and god do the people thank me. I'm even starting to feel a little bugged by 1024x768 since i've had more and more exposure to tft's running 1280 and higher...but i need to save for a while so i can get myself some dual 20"'s or something. If the client wants 1024, go for it.

Evios

Sturart and Timberford said to do what the client says, while giginger says to try and convince the company that they may lose profit if they change by possibly turning away 20% of their online customers. I think it depends more on what type of company you've started (or work for). Is your company one that meets the clients demands, no matter what they are, to make them happy. Or does it not bother you that you may lose money in confronting the company about the loss they may incur by changing their current website size. I think both sets of answers could be correct. Meeting a clients demands makes them happy, alas so does the ability to consult them that change may not be what is necessarily good. Both will create return customers, but the question you have to ask yourself is, which will create more word-of-mouth business for you. "They did a great job, they designed exactly what we wanted quickly and successfully!" "They consulted us on the appropriate move for the online sector of our business and saved us a potential loss of over 20% of our online market!"

Kosmo

Evios has excellent points, I'm entitled to let them know that the transition to the 10x7 resolution or bigger site as you'd put it for a simpleton, may have an impact on their online visitors which is one of the largest advertising method. But at the same time I have to inform them that even tho it makes the sites harder to access for those under 10x7 resolutions it doesn't render the site useless per se, it just makes it harder to have all the necessary information handy. I don't have any personal preferences that would get between my clients needs, but at the same time I'm a professional who has seen alot more websites and seen them objectively and not just for the "entertainment value" as one would say. So infact, I'm acting as a consultant who informs them about the facts and let's my client decide where we are going to move.

deel

imo - nowadays if someone is viewing at 800x600 they are used to scrolling, and sites looking like arse.

you could almost argue that the majority that are viewing it at a higer res, might be feeling a bit ripped off - which could be a turn off as well :D

timberford

i think if you are going to talk statistics on browser sizes then i'd be interested to know where this 20% using 800x600 has come from. more importantly does that 20% of 800x600 users accurately represent the audience of the site you are going to build? like i said before, it depends on who the site's for.

the aloha

tell the client about the dangers, and still take them there if they want to go.

stuart

Also consider screen resolution isn't a great indicator of window size. I run 1680/1050, yet my browser is never maximized, i Have a letterbox type browser window which is about 75? my monitor width. 1024/768 doesn't always mean you have 1024 pixels to play with.

Krak

If thats what the client wants, I'd give it to them, they are paying for it. Just let em know that there are 20% of their visitors still using 800x600. But like it was said: if you are still uisng 800x600, your used to scrolling and ugly websites. I use 1280x1024 in XP, and since I started using linux I have started using 1600x1200. I have a 20" Trinitron. Its a pain in the ass making websites on really nice resolutions though. What looks bad ass on my screen looks like shit on my moms. I really hate that.

lech

Depending on the layout, you could work the middle-ground and make the site flexible to display at nearly any resolution depending entirely on the content of the site. Typically, the only reason I know of why people run in 800x600 is either that A) their monitors and gfx cards don't support it, or B) they have a tough time reading their screen at a higher resolution, or C) they just have really tiny monitors implying case A. Best thing to do here is create a flexible site which can shrink and grow accordingly to any given resolution from 8x6 to 16x12 and beyond. If done right it shouldn't be a problem.

lech

also given that im at 1600x1200, my browser is rarely ever maximized, so you could say im working within a 1280x1024 resolution browser. However any type of detection script will pull the properties for the full resolution in most cases.

Krak

1600x1200 is damned sexy. lol Only looks good in Liunux though, looks way too small in XP.

Minisweeper

people who use monitors at below their native resolution really piss me off. I got everyone at work tft's and until i set them properly they were all using 8x6. Now any non native res looks shit on a tft but 8x6 looks shit full stop. When i walk up to a guy with a 17" tft and change him from 8x6 to 1280x1024 he starts bawling about how small everything is. ITS THE RIGHT FUCKING SIZE, JUST CAUSE YOU GOT USED TO BEING BLIND! that said, i've never had cause to use 16x12 unfortunately.

lech

just gotta know how to tweak the desktop in windows, I'm running win2k btw cause XP is damn fugly no matter how you slice it. But it's great for mapping/modeling and working in photoshop, however I could use a new monitor as this one's going a bit fuzzy.

lech

lol @ mini, yeah, on my laptop screen, if it's not at 1024x768, all the pixels appear doubled and skewed which doesn't look right at any other res.

Minisweeper

its not so bad when you change it, they complain, and then settle down and realise its better. Its when they change it back when you leave that bugs me. *goes into group policy management and plays them at their own game.

Krak

My XP looks just like any 2k setup. Turned off the theme/styles crap.

lech

krak, there's still that "blue flashing" that appears when you jump into and out of games in the quick launch bar and other areas of the screen which still screams "I'M XP, FEAR ME!". This also rears it's ugly head at boot time. I don't care if it boots faster, it's still not reliable for me.

giginger

The only time my browser isn't maximised is when I'm at work and I'm reading forums and don't want the boss to see. Normally though it's at full 1600*1200 at work. 1280*1024 at home :(

Minisweeper

heh lech - to be fair on s2k3, people laugh at me and its still not quite as compatable as it needs to be, but it's definately much more stable than XP - mines been on just over 2 weeks and is still going really strong unlike XP which died after a week. And by default it doesnt have any theming whatsoever. Whether or not the uncomptability would fuck you off depends what kind of peripherals you have i guess.

lech

yeah, it's one of the MS downfalls. compatibility, whether it's hardware or software drive me away or drive me crazy in the long run. Because there's some things that work in XP vs 2k and vice versa, so far I've been happy running 2k as XP is simply a bastardized version of 2k and the only thing I can't run in 2k is a silly little webcam, vs a few applications I would need to upgrade to run in XP, the trade-off here is staying in 2k and kicking XP. That may change in the future though as I'm slowly upgrading everything.

Krak

To each their own. I like XP, have no issues with it. Runs superb. Never crashes. No problems here. Software works just fine also. I must have the special "magical" setup.

timberford

i only changed to xp pro this week as i built a new pc and felt it was probably time to make the switch. have to say though that 2k was really good for me and i wouldn't hesitate to switch back if xp starts to give me problems. as for my own resolution... i run 16x12 but i have to say i rarely max firefox. quite often i like to be able to see a couple of windows at the same time. e.g. google talk

Minisweeper

lol krak - xp didnt seem to crash as such but it just seemed to slow down..i'm not sure. This is still as fast as it was a few days after boot and i expect a slight slow down as i get all my apps running. Fingers crossed it doesnt decide to do a security update and reboot itself again =\. lech - software compatability doesnt seem to be such an issue - i got my webcam working on 2k3 which i had troubles with on XP (though i've had it fine before, my last 2 xp installs didnt like it) - i find the 'compatability mode' surprisingly competant at keeping older software versions running well. The main issue i have is that 2k3 *hates* the idea of having a bluetooth stack - it works, but its not willing to co-operate with the proper drivers. Which is a little annoying.

lech

I'm slowly growing to hate MS and Windows all together and have been researching my alternatives. The hype is dying and "vista" seems a bit short-sighted, so either I'll be jumping between 2k/xp or eventually saving up for that mac to get work done while keeping a cheap pc around for gaming and such. I've been researching all my alternatives lately and so far, windows is looking bleak. But hey, lets get this topic back on track, shall we? :D

Minisweeper

heh. I must say i'm very tempted to get a mac, but i'm still not convinced about compatability and suchlike. And theyre very expensive for my needs. Hum. Topics? On track? I think you're on the wrong forum dear...

Krak

So why not use linux and dual boot windows for gaming? As far as I am concerned, Macs were (are) never an option. I mean, its a Mac. And they are too fucking pricey. i can buy a car, or a Mac. No upgrades, limited software. Im sure support sucks too. I hate Macs. And if you really really wanted OSX or Tiger, or whatever they are calling it nowadays, you can run it on a PC (dunno how well). Linux is free. There was a topic?

lech

OSX is rather nice, and suprisingly, many more games are supportive of it these days unlike os9, frankly because of the underlying bsd/nix system with a pretty candy shell. So the switch to mac is a better option than it was before. Yeah, you're right, what topic?