Best screen size for web site.

[jana]

I think it should readable fit the size of a standard monitor. With LCD monitors now in vogue a size of 1024 x 768 pixels would suit the most.

[Christopher]

It's smart to design your site no wider than 800px. If your worried that the site will get lost on someone 19" - 24" widescreen monitor, you can always place a no-repeat background image on the page and position it so it to the left or right of the main site box. I usually go for their logo or other reused graphic on the site as a ghost image (tinted to the same color of the background). Some designers think this style is out of date, but I have yet to meet a client that doesn't like it.

In addition to size lately instead of going deep with pages, I try to keep the content no deeper that 600px. This way the entire page shows on laptops without making people scroll. It's not that hard to break up the content with more pages.

[Sohail Ahmed]

I always set width of web page is 960px...

[jammybush]

In my view 800*600 is the best screen size for a website.

[adixehal]

Full size of webpage and screen be 1024x1024, I know.

[CliffordSanchez]

It's difficult to design a site to look the exact same in every internet browser, platform and screen resolution, so don't bother trying. Rather, use a fluid, tableless layout for your style, with % widths that broaden and contract to fit a visitors browser setting. Style for the 1024x768 setting and also ensure it agreements effectively, or 'transforms gracefully', to the 800x600 setting.

[smithroy]

Currently, 1366 x 768 is the most used, followed by a declining percentage of 1024 x 768. This is best website size screen.

[Matt]

Agreed. 800x600 is dead. If it's not, lets kill it. Ask yourself, do you need the clients that run those old systems? They probably do not have the money to spend on upgrades, so how are they going to afford your products? If it's not the money, it might be the fear some people have of change. If someone is afraid of change, the web is the wrong business to be in

[Matt]

That's a bit harsh, we appreciate all of our clients, even ones who enjoy seeing a bottom scroll bar.

Cheers,
Eric4

Yes I appreciate them too but I am not going to spend time marketing to them and I will already have an experience-based bias that these types of users are probably unable (for monetary reasons) or unwilling (due to laziness or intellect) to learn how to keep up with technology and probably do not excel at things like efficient usage of a computer.

In other words, they are less likely to be power-users or even competent-users thus tying up support times on the most basic of issues, half of which are probably unrelated to web hosting. They will probably cost us more to support than other clients and they will be less willing to pay what they need to pay, to get the job done properly.

This can be problematic when dealing in an Internet service business which by nature is always bleeding edge.

Picking and choosing your clients and sticking in a niche is a far superior way to conduct business than trying to please everyone. My humblest opinion of course.

I'd rather run a shop on Rodeo Drive than run a Wal-Mart any day.

[rachel404]

800x600 is dead. If it's not, lets kill it. Ask yourself, do you need the clients that run those old systems? They probably do not have the money to spend on upgrades, so how are they going to afford your products? If it's not the money, it might be the fear some people have of change. If someone is afraid of change, the web is the wrong business to be in

Harsh words, but a good point quite frankly. On topic though, we make sure to design all our websites to at least 1024 x 768 specifications. Unless clients want something "fancier", and are okay with losing out to that kind of demographic.