Just a short post to note that OneStat has released figures about worldwide and country specific screen resolutions of Internet users. Here's the global averages:
| 1. | 1024 x 768 | 56.15% |
| 2. | 1280 x 1024 | 15.79% |
| 3. | 800 x 600 | 12.04% |
| 4. | 1280 x 800 | 4.09% |
| 5. | 1152 x 864 | 3.90% |
And data for just the US:
| 1. | 1024 x 768 | 52.22% |
| 2. | 800 x 600 | 13.81% |
| 3. | 1280 x 1024 | 16.91% |
| 4. | 1280 x 800 | 5.05% |
| 5. | 1152 x 864 | 3.63% |
In my opinion, it's still advisable to design to 760pixels wide (for fixed width layouts), as 12% of the world and 14% of the US are on these resolutions. Once those numbers drop below 5%, it will be more practical for websites to feature fixed layouts tailored to 1024 pixels.
I don't think you are going to see those numbers drop anytime soon and there are two reasons for this.
1. Many laptop screens are only 15" across and come 800x600 out-of-box.
2. As Baby Boomers age, a lower screen resolution will make it easier for them to read online content.
750-760px designs will, and should, be here for a while.
-T
I'm more concerned with which users are buying on my sites and from some testing I've done it's very clear that they are NOT in the 800px wide demographic and that's even testing on an 800px wide site. My theory in very non-scientific terms is that if you're running 800x600 you're probably not going to be interested in anything I'm selling. The type of site dictates how rigid I'll be in that regard.
It's easy enough to sniff out the screen resolution so why not use that to our advantage. Why not serve custom sizes based upon what the end user can handle. Why be forced to making such a decision?
What that? Ohh you don't want to build multiple versions of your tabled site? Yeah....that's one more reason to start building in CSS. CSS allows me to so very easily serve different fixed layouts should I not like how something fluid behaves at smaller widths. Better yet, use that CSS to offer your users a way to change their style sheet and remember it for when they return.
On my commerce sites I'm going to serve you a screen experience that you can handle without leaving 2/3rd of the real estate blank. You've purchased a large display so I'm going to take advantage of it.
Hi All + Rand
Very sorry I am going to put different query, out of the topic, but I am quite crazy about this thats why I can not wait
My question is What does google bot read code of the webpage or the rendered text which displays in the browser.
If code checked by search engines then it is quite easy for algo to check the hidden text and all the spam on that page. But I don't think that it always give preference to the code.
Check this page and check the code
https://www.theseoguru.com/Search-Engines-News...
Browser is diplaying title & content but in google cache there is nothing. Even this page is coming in top ten of google result, with the search 'what does googlebot read' Why this page is ranking ???????
The topic of the day at work was screen resolutions and while debating the strenths and weaknesses we had consensus that excluding audiences based on the screen resolution is a risk, but we definitely had different camps as to whether or not this is the way to go for advice to our clients.
In the end we got stuck on the point of whether or not the screen resolution has any effect on the way that search engines actually view a page -- i.e. if we are really looking at this from a 100% pure search engine perspective, not a usability perspective, is there any difference? And yes I see this is categorized for usability -- but what we'll do to quell office debates...
Hello this is wonderful site! Really cool and it will be new inspirations for me.
Top 10 Guaranteed or Money Back, to get your website visibility high with guaranteed seo services India, Increase Sales, traffic. WebCyberDesign offers solutions to meet business’s goal, we are offering Internet marketing services, SEO Services, social media marketing, PPC, link building, affiliate marketing to know more just call now +91 9971233640
https://webcyberdesign.com/
Great timing on the post. I have been testing a 970 pixel design and a 760 one, and was about to settle on the larger resolution. This helped me decide to stick with the 760.
Thank you.
Ah if only images could be fluid too. :(
I'm with the last few posters - screen resolution stats don't tell the whole story. You can't assume that everyone browses with the window maximized and no extra browser elements visible. I have my Opera panels on the left side which takes up about 180 pixels of my 1152 x 864 display. That makes my window about 980 pixels wide. And I like it that way! All these sites going fixed at 1024 are getting really annoying.
I know I posted this link lately, but since it's highly related to topic it's worth another mention... TheCounter Global statistics...
I don't know how large datasets the OneStat figures are based, the 5 percentage unit offset with 800x600 compared to theCounter figures is still considerable.
IMO it shows pretty well how large the technical differences between different kind of user /audience types can be. I consider theCounter users to be more of home/private users, while OneStat is for a bit more serious use. It's pretty much the same as comparing msn and google - google is for geeks, msn for home users...
I was interested to see this blog today, because it coincided with something I posted this morning on the eBay boards. I put up a page oriented to the 1024 x 768 format and dropped a note on the eBay boards for people to look at it. 2 out of 10 people who responded in the first few hours said it was too big for their 800 x 600 screens. That's just a tiny survey, obviously, but seems to agree with the above chart.
I agree with Rand...better to stick with the 800 x 600 until the larger screens are more universal. You just never know who that fellow with the smaller screen might be...
Thank you, Rand.
Good info, I Have one question here Rand, can you tell me what does googlebot read. The code of the website or the rendered text displays on the browser
My understanding is that unless they're looking for some sort of CSS cloaking or tricks (MS had a paper on this from a year or so ago), it's just the code that's seen by engines.
Thanks for quick response:), If code checked by search engines then it is quite easy for algo to check the hidden text and all the spam on that page. But I don't think that it always give preference to the code.
Check this page and check the code
https://www.theseoguru.com/Search-Engines-News...
Browser is diplaying title & content but in google cache there is nothing. Even this page is coming in top ten of google result, with the search "what does googlebot read"
What about mobile / cell phones and pda's, with a bigger user base using them more and more do they not tend more to 640 / 480 + 800 / 600?
Hi ally,
how webpages behave on mobile devices is currently pretty much dependant on browser, not the device. Basically most mobile browsers shrunk the page to fit the available display area, but they use different techniques to achieve this.... I blogged this topic few weeks ago at my project site...
Of course it isn't only the screen dimensions of the visitor's viewing device that counts. They may choose to look at web pages in reduced windows. They may also find reading very long lines of text is not all that easy on the eyes either. So the proportion of people who find they prefer their web pages to fit within 760 pixels may be significantly higher than these numbers show.
Interesting stats.
wonder what will be the breakdown for Asia
Thanks Rand.