It’s been a while since I checked on screen resolution statistics in relation to our site visitors, so here’s how the various resolutions stack up based on around 40,000 visits over the last 4-5 days
|
1 |
52.55% |
1024×768 |
|
2 |
12.76% |
800×600 |
|
3 |
12.10% |
1280×1024 |
|
4 |
6.69% |
1280×800 |
|
5 |
3.66% |
unknown |
|
6 |
3.48% |
1152×864 |
|
7 |
1.74% |
1440×900 |
|
8 |
1.28% |
1680×1050 |
|
9 |
1.27% |
1280×768 |
|
10 |
0.90% |
1280×960 |
Looking back through previous statistics on screen resolution in 2005, I see that in May, still approximately 30% of people were running in 800×600; so much has changed over the last year or so. 640×480 is now nearly off the radar at one-tenth of a percent.
Even though 1024×768 and higher resolutions are by far the most popular, it’s still wise to bear in mind that 12% of users running 800×600 when designing a site. I run my notebook at that resolution and I’ve noticed on many sites optimized for 1024×768 that some crucial elements immediately aren’t visible. Scrolling horizontally is somewhat of a pain in the butt. It’s very distracting and a distracted visitor may miss important information or special offers.
It’s very interesting to see how many people run screen resolutions higher than 1024×768. I don’t think I’ve ever tried surfing the web at 1680×1050 :)
As for color depth, the most popular setting according to our statistics is 32 bit at 82% of visitors. 256 colors hardly registers now. Ah, the memories :).
Consider that all internet users are not clear eyed 20 year olds and it will become apparent why the use 800×600 resolution. They can’t read the small type comfortably. Nor can they read page after page of reversed type on the ludicrous web sites who use such crap. A basic principle of typography is to mack your printing easily legible. Artsy-Craftsy sucks. Don’t try to get fancy and use hard to read type faces. Good serif and sans serif type faces abound. Pick a good one.
Comment by Igor — September 26, 2006 @ 12:44 pm