Why screen resolution is NOT important
Across a bunch of Internet Marketing blogs, I've seen posts and comments relating to Screen Resolution and how we should all be designing sites for a minimum of 1024 width. These people are not designers - they are Internet Marketers, and by god, it shows!
Some history
In the "olden" days, before .css was de riguer, most website deisgners made designs to suit the width of a 800 x 600 browser screen. In reality, this meant taking a fixed width of about 760 pixels or so.
In fact, lots, and I mean _lots_ of website designers still design for this size. Myself included on the odd occasion. Why? Because that size is just right for Adsense monetisation.
Nowadays, most monitors are 17" or higher, which has meant that 1024 resolutions have become the norm. You can check this out on a plethora of sites, or just take a look at the Cpanel webstats on your most popular site. I can almost guarantee that 800 resolution will be a very tiny percentage of the overall use. So why design for them?
Right here, right now
It annoys me to see people recommend to design for at least 1024 resolution. Your stats are telling you lies.
As an example, I browse using 1024 x 768, and that is what your stats will tell you. And yet, my viewport is less than 800 width as I have multiple browser windows open, as well as email, some flavour of graphics program, FTP and so on.
Into the Future
Start thinking about your USERS. Design for a fluid width if possible.
If your user expands his viewport full width, does your website expand as well? If he takes the viewport down to 600 width, does your design gracefully contract. Or does it create horizontal scrollbars?
And today?
In todays age of CSS & xHTML, it should be far easier to see designs which work. Before thinking of what resolution to design for, think of accessibility and usability. They are paramount. If the needs of your website users call for a fixed width design, then give them a fixed width design. But why not also give a fluid design as well?
Hmmm. Bit of a meandering post there. If anyone "gets" it, great. If not, well, I guess you are an Internet Marketer 
Comment by ash — May 17, 2007 @ 9:59 am
I think you should bring back
http://www.xwww.co.uk/tools
Comment by Chance — May 17, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Its not the width of shady internet marketing sales pages that bug me, its the length
Comment by gary — May 17, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Ash; I can't remember what was on it. I recall a way to make pop-up boxes the correct size. I can't remember any of the others.
JC, true
Comment by James — May 17, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
If I don't get it does that mean I'm rich too?
I think it's funny that I will think scroll bars are not too bad-until I have it on someone else's site.
You have some very good points that I will need to remember.
Comment by SarahG — May 17, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
If you check on thecounter.com they have global stats which shows April having 12% of global users with 800*600. Of course with the rise of usage of PDAs, Mobile Phones etc. you really can't alienate small res users. Fluid is definitely best as a thin fixed width design can look lost on a decent monitor at say 1600px wide. Try and suit everyone whenever possible!
Comment by mattsofi — May 18, 2007 @ 2:09 am
I have to disagree with this. It is better to design for smaller than the bigger one.
Have you ever read a blog that goes from left to right, 1024 pixels across ? As text is relatively small, it makes your reading harder and very unpleasant.
Why the newspaper has a small column ?
my 2 cents.
Comment by gary — May 18, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Hmmmn, are you sure we are disagreeing? I am saying that designing for a fixed width is not great - and that designing with usability and accessibility is better. Is that not what you are saying?
Comment by mattsofi — May 18, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
maybe i misunderstood you.. not?
:LOL: