Im in the process of building a poser-related website, and I'm interested in what the average renderosity user sets their monitor resolution at. Generally when I've designed a page in the past I've used 1024x768 as the standard. Also, this would help when I'm loading images to my gallery because I want them to fit nicely on as many people's screens as possible. TY for any input :)

1024 x 768, but I use a tabbed browser and maximize but don't "full screen" so I've got a little less website real estate.

1024x768

FyreSpiryt hints at something to be considered: window framing, menubars, and scroll bars of the browser. Even if most people are using 1024x768, fully maximized, they may only get 1000x650 (guesstimation there) for page display. The current recommended size for websites is one that will work with at least 800 width. With good web design, you can have it adjust for larger widths and still look good (as this website does). I also used a tabbed browser, but my monitor is set to 1600x1200, so it can handle most everything.

1024x768. If I ever invest in a decent 19-inch monitor, I'll probably move up to 1280x960.

I must point out that the "800x600" rule really cares more about the "800" than "600". Although important content should reside within the 800x600, web pages are by standard and design vertical and will naturally go beyond (sometimes way beyond, 600). Design for 800 width, putting the most important content within the first 600 pixels. The best place to remain at 800x600 strictly is your main page so that everything from there can be immediately accessible. I agree with others. I wouldn't 'compromise' between resolutions. Pick one and mention what a surfer should have for the best viewing (I do this on both my own and my dojo's website) - e.g.: "Best viewed at 1024x768". To go esoteric on ya all ;), if one were to pander to the LCD, then one would need to consider web-enabled cell phones, PDAs, and other low-resolution devices that can connect to the web. Except under special circumstances, this would be too restrictive and cause more viewing dissatisfaction than not. As fls13 has shown, 1024x768 has become the majority resolution what with low cost of even LCD (not to be confused with LCD above) monitors. You can safely use that as the resolution and satisfy at least 75% of the viewers. Still, 800x600 is the 'industry' recommended resolution. Kuroyume

Some statistics from my webcounter, after about 50.000 hits:

Screen Resolution Visitors % Total 
1600 x 1280         2091     3.92 % 
1280 x 1024        10658    19.98 % 
1152 x 864          5058     9.48 % 
1024 x 768         31639    59.32 % 
800 x 600           7987    14.98 % 
640 x 480            156     0.29 % 
Other Resolution    2109     3.95 % 
<br></br><br></br>
Web Browsers            Visitors % Total 
 AOL                        1513   2.84 % 
 Web TV                        4   0.01 % 
 Internet Explorer 4.x       148   0.28 % 
 Internet Explorer 5.x     10923   20.48 % 
 Internet Explorer 6.x     38594   72.36 % 
 Safari                      615   1.15 % 
 Netscape 3.x                244   0.46 % 
 Netscape 4.x               1609   3.02 % 
 Netscape 6.x                459   0.86 % 
 Netscape 7.x               1778   3.33 % 
 Mozilla                     775   1.45 % 
 Opera                       535   1.00 % 
 Opera 5.x                    12   0.02 % 
 Opera 6.x                   231   0.43 % 
 Opera 7.x                   537   1.01 % 
 Konqueror                    19   0.04 % 
 Unknown Browser             128   0.24 % 

Since my website is also 100% Poser related, It might give you an idea of the average visitors :o)

I actually just checked, and a monitor set at 1024x768 will only have 1024x625 pixels viewable in IE. Is everybody still using IE? I'm on a bit of a custom setup, 19" monitor and using opera as my main browser, 1280x960 res.

1024x768 I belong to a couple of web design groups..they recommend 800x600 for web pages, etc...so you might want to check into that some more. Also, 640x480 is still pretty normal..its only been recently that 17inch monitors are common, which 800x600 is the recommended resolution... 1024x768 on 19inch etc etc

1280x960 on a 19" monitor on my main PC. On my older PC it's 1024x768 with a 17" monitor.

I use two monitors. One 21" with 1600x1200. The other is a flat screen my wife gave me for Christmas. It's a 17" at 1280x1024.

1792x1344, with a 21" Trinitron monitor. I like the extra screen real-estate, what can I say? ;-) bonni

I use 1600x1200. 1024x768 is for Postage Stamps!!

1024x768 here.

1152x864

hmmmmmmm, this is quite a dilemma. I want the page to fit nicely onto a 17" monitor at 1024x768, but I also want it to display well on larger monitors with a higher res... decisions decisions!

You might be interested in some research-based web design guidelines:

http://usability.gov/guidelines/

I use 1280 x 1024 myself.

1280x960 here, on both our systems.

1024 x 768 on the net

1280 x 1024 (but with slightly oversized fonts) on my main desktop PC, 1024 x 768 on the notebook.

to stop drinking and playing the horses..oh, no, that's my resolution..actually, at my age, anything smaller than 1024x768 is a bit annoying..;)

If I design the site at 1152x864, that would probably be a nice happy medium for everyone?

I'd still say 800 x 600 but capable of using more space (as per this site) but certainly no larger than 1024 x 768. There seem to be a high percentage of 1024 x 768 users - why make the site too large for them to comfortably use?

I may run my monitor at a high resolution (1600x1200), but most of the time I do not make my browser Full Screen. 1024x768 should be OK (disregard my postage stamp comment, I was just gloating).

well, now I need to ask..JVR...what size monitor do you have? and...where did you get that great bike model ????

JV, sweet dual-monitor setup :)

Dave, I have two monitors side by side set at 1024X768 each. The bike's from BillyT. JV

1024x768

I've had 5000 hits on my site's home page. 1024x768 54.01% 800x600 19.06% 1280x1024 16.47% 1152x864 8.92% 640x480 1.54% Gotta think of your audience. :O)

19" monitor using 1024x768 with small icons/fonts, things start getting too small for me to see if I go any larger. To answer post#6: "Is everybody still using IE? NO! Only when I have to, I prefer FireBird. Would use the newer FireFox but it won't run right on my system so I'm staying with the older FireBird untill FireFox is fixed. Won't touch Netscape anymore with a 10-1/2foot pole (not since ver7.5 came out)! AOL and Earthlink's browsers will NEVER touch any of my machines!

MAC - 19 inch 1280x960 Safari PC - 17 inch 1024x768 IE I design all my websites so that they can be viewed with 800x600 resolution. Regards, E

1280x960. 17" LCD screen.

Some statistics from my webcounter, after about 50.000 hits:

Screen Resolution Visitors % Total 
1600 x 1280         2091     3.92 % 
1280 x 1024        10658    19.98 % 
1152 x 864          5058     9.48 % 
1024 x 768         31639    59.32 % 
800 x 600           7987    14.98 % 
640 x 480            156     0.29 % 
Other Resolution    2109     3.95 % 
<br></br><br></br>
Web Browsers            Visitors % Total 
 AOL                        1513   2.84 % 
 Web TV                        4   0.01 % 
 Internet Explorer 4.x       148   0.28 % 
 Internet Explorer 5.x     10923   20.48 % 
 Internet Explorer 6.x     38594   72.36 % 
 Safari                      615   1.15 % 
 Netscape 3.x                244   0.46 % 
 Netscape 4.x               1609   3.02 % 
 Netscape 6.x                459   0.86 % 
 Netscape 7.x               1778   3.33 % 
 Mozilla                     775   1.45 % 
 Opera                       535   1.00 % 
 Opera 5.x                    12   0.02 % 
 Opera 6.x                   231   0.43 % 
 Opera 7.x                   537   1.01 % 
 Konqueror                    19   0.04 % 
 Unknown Browser             128   0.24 % 

Since my website is also 100% Poser related, It might give you an idea of the average visitors :o)

Fluid design is the key, not fixed width. Many webcounters display what the browser tells them to. So, if I made my Opera tell it's Explorer 6, your counter might tell you it got a visit from Explorer, not Opera. Better analyzers display the whole ID string, but I don't know what do they count. Also, if I'm not wrong, AOL switched to Netscape since version 8, didn't they? Otherwise, it's Explorer 5.x. Finally, I use 1600x1200, but my browser window is about 1024 pixels wide. I'd be crazy to stretch it for the whole 1600 pixels. Couldn't read anything properly.

ernyoka1; I always find it funny to see people still using IE4 and NS3. Actually just a few weeks ago I had a neighbor ask me to check their machine for issues they were having, when I got there I found they were still using Win95 with IE3.0! Along with several viruses and about every spyware ever created they weren't going No Where! After a complete re-install and several hours of patching and fixing their back on the net....well, as good as Win95 can anyway.. I still find it amazing that AOL attempts to block their members from so many sites (like housecall, MSupdate, etc). Last I heard they have are using IE6's engine but it's still thier own interface so they can controll it to some point, much like what Earthlink now does with their TA2004?

1280 x 960

My website stats (last 18 months) 800x6001864150.71% 1024x7681362437.06% 1280x102418465.02% 640x4809662.62% 1152x8649212.50% Other5741.56% 1600x12001880.51% Bear in mind that's not a Poser or design-related site. Interesting to see such a difference. It might also be affected since my site is "Bobby Approved" which means it is classfied as fully accessible to surfers with sight, hearing or movement impairment.

1024x768 (True Color (32 bit) , 21 inch monitor)

1024 on one, 1024 plus 832 on the other (makes a nice chat window). Like Erlik, I usually set my iCab browser to pretend it is IE, just to avoid those annoying "This site would have even more cool flashing things on it if you would just support Microsoft's attempt to make the web an adjunct of their own monopoly."

the picture Im getting here is that the vast majority of users have their monitor set at 1024x768 or lower. I'm def going to design it to fit onto 800x600, although it might be optimized for viewing in a higher resolution.

I use 1024x768

I use 1280x960 on a 21" monitor.

I use 1024x768, but have to use the Windows "Large Fonts" option to keep things readable for my weary old eyes. Please, try not to force font and screen sizes on us poor users. We set our screens up for our needs, not yours.

3200x1200, dual 21" Trinitrons... But I prefer sites designed for a 1024 width...just my 2 pixels. :)

17" Flat Monitor at 1024x768 Generally most people viewing your site will have that, but it would be better to design it for 800x600, as that's the recommended size for most websites. What I did for mine, is set up 3 tables, where the picture stays in the middle, but the side tables can expand depending on the resolution of whoever's viewing it. I try keeping my site simple because it's easier to maintain, and it's easier on the eyes. If you're thinking about using Flash, make it so it adds to your site, not distract from it. I'm always reminded of that acronym, KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), when I work on my site. You're designing a website, not auditioning to work on George Lucas's next Star Wars flick. Keep in mind what you're building your site for, always (Yes, I've been sucked into the web graphics wormhole myself). As far as browsers, IE 6.0 is what most people use (I personally feel Netscape is crap), but I also use Opera as well as Mozilla for testing my site. It'll also help having something on the front page, specifying which browsers your site was tested on. If you're going to make your website 1024x768, make sure you have your required screen resolution showing, so those who view the site will know (and save them from thinking their computer is possessed). Good luck to you.. :-)

P.S. JVRenderer, hand over your monitors now, or the hamster gets it..

Also try and remember that some people have Broadband, some people have what their ISP CALLS Broadband but is only around 128Kbps or 150Kbps, and some people still have only 56Kbps modems. No, it's true - ordinary modems still exist!