Why do most websites still cater to 1024 pixels?

Why do most websites still cater to screens 1024 pixels wide? I feel like my 1600x900 screen is wasted. I could make them fill the entire screen horizontally but I couldn't do that without losing a big chunk of information vertically.

NBR is probably one of the few websites that can dynamically adjust to user screen resolution. Why not other sites? Even professional sites such as CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Federal Reserve and The White House still cater to 1024 pixels wide.

 

One word: Netbooks.

 

Personally, I almost never use my browser maximized - it's usually taking up 1/2 to 3/4 of my screen. Also, with the increase in numbers of people using netbooks and smartphones to browse the web, websites that cater to high-res screens would be very inconvenient on smaller screens.

 

well obviously because a good many people must still use that resolution. they dont cater to 1024 for no reason.

 

Upgrade to a 1920 x 1200 screen

 

Because a single wide column of text isn't very readable either.

 

True but they could code a website dynamically adjusted with several columns in one article. Similar to printed newspaper. Or have more information side by side, such as graphs, charts, pictures or videos.

 

Who uses the browser maximized? The width of my Firefox / IE window is exactly 1024 pixels so most pages looks fine. I tend to have multiple windows open (which is why it's called "windows") and none of them are maximized. As such, it is very easy to switch between them and even have them side-by-side.

 

haha I always maximise everything. but I guess your right. they are called windows lol. I'll try your way

 

because that is (right now) additional work. and we know how much webdesigners are into "work"...
html5 will bring multicolumn layouts without effort to everyone. but that takes a while.

i use every app maximized most of the time. thankfully, there is ctrl-mousewheel to zoom. that way i have the page on the full screen, in the layout they where designed, as big as possible. easy to read that way.

 

"A while" is an understatement. At the speed the W3C works, I wouldn't expect HTML 5 to become a standard until 2020 or beyond. I mean, CSS 3 has been under development since what, the 1990's?

Likewise, it'll be a long time before the major browsers have enough (draft) HTML 5 support to make it a reality. Long enough that Windows XP will be nothing but a distant memory and Windows 7 will be on its way out.

 

advantage is, most stuff of html5 (or css3) can be applied to a page in a non-destructive fashion. meaning you can with some simple css add multicolumn layout. and any browser not understanding it will just use the singlecolumn version.

allows for quick adoption to the new features, even while they're not yet widely supported (which is why my page is filled with css3 shadows. if a browser (ie *cough*) doesn't support it, it just lacks a bit of visual prettiness, but still works perfectly.

multicolumn is identical here.

and no, css 3 is quite far by now (and actually, html5 is unimportant for the column thing. it's a css 3 feature)

 

True, but even today CSS 3 is rarely used on the web. A combination of laziness and pixel-perfect obsessions means that graceful degradation is seen as more of a last resort than a choice.

My idealistic side would love to agree that CSS 3 is quite far, but my pragmatic side Googled "border-radius IE8" about a year ago and ended up disappointing both sides.

 

most css 3 features are by now in test-versions on chrome, firefox, and some even on ie8 available.

and, as said, a lot of them can be used without drawbacks when not supported.

graceful degradation will get quite hip, at least for ie6 and ie7 when is ie6s funeral now? tomorrow? no, today! http://ie6funeral.com/

 

Hahaha, the way you put it combined with that site put a smile on my face and made my day

But the problem is that simply having a fancy new browser available with extensive CSS 3 support is not enough - the vast majority of people must (be forced) to use the new browser as well for its existence to be meaningful.

A small but sizeable (~20%?) portion of the world for whatever reason never upgrades their browser unless if they're forced to - and they're really only forced to upgrade when they upgrade to a newer version of Windows.

Vista never really caught on so that's not too problematic, and XP is on its way out so that's not too problematic either, but soon the world will be entrenched in Windows 7 and IE8 (which has limited CSS 3 support). So at the very earliest, CSS 3 won't be mainstream until Windows 8 and IE9 are mainstream as well. Assuming that IE9 has comprehensive CSS 3 support, that is.

 

bigger resolution does not mean more productivity

 

don't be that negative. if you lose hope, everything's lost

but sure, it takes time.

but at least we're at a state where browsers all work fine by default. not perfect, but fine. that form of graceful degradation is much more to accept than what we had to work with before with i6.

and i see a lot of pages not caring about pixel perfect for more than one browser anymore. big pages, actually. (even facebook).

oh it does. but webbrowsing close to never means productivity, so it doesn't matter

 

Just about everyone, but you and a couple of others.

 

Because of the economy my friend. When times are rough you have to conserve monetary resources. This is why websites perform 1024 pixel support!

 

New york times skimmer does that.

http://www.nytimes.com/timesskimmer/

 

My home computer has a 20" monitor with max resolution of 1600x1200, but in order to actually see it without too much eyestrain I run it at 1024x768.

At work I have twin 22" widescreen monitors but there I don't run the browser full screen.

 

I do for one. I actually use most applications maximized most of the time. The only primary exceptions are Explorer, Notepad, and SSH Secure Shell. For the browser, I don't really "waste" that many pixels - not enough to have another browser open on the side, at least.

And according to NetMarketShare, 1024x768 is the most commonly used resolution on the Web. So there's a good reason it's supported. Just be glad most websites don't cater to the 0.09% who browse in VGA.

 

The reason you don't see more dynamically scaling websites is because many websites want to keep a consistent look and feel across a variety of browsers and computing platforms. It would be great if everyone implemented web standards the same way, but there are definite differences in how IE, FireFox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, and other browsers render page content. Sometimes it's very difficult and time-consuming to figure out a series of CSS commands in which make things line up perfectly all the time without having a mess of browser or device specific style sheets.

There's also a wide variety of opinions out there about what constitutes good design. My idea of good design is having a single stylesheet control the layout of a page regardless of browser and device. Some people, particularly those coming from art schools, are much more fond of the fixed size approach to everything because you force the browser to line things up all the time through various techniques. Sometimes it's fun just to run around to websites, look at their source code, check out their images, and see how they built it. Unfortunately, the same disconnect between people in the profession exists behind the scenes on the software that powers those websites...but I'm not going to go there right now...

 

Majority of screen resolution settings at work is 1024x768. Granted, most are still on 17" LCD's but even those with 19/20", they still run that resolution. Wonder how they will adjust to the 22" wides that are coming.

 

Exactly. Why people want to go backwards with computers is beyond my mind...

 

Amen to this.

 

Are you serious? Why do some gamers want an alienware m11x when they can get more powerful systems.... size and portability of course!

I can't imagine how painful it would be to look at 1920 x 1200 on 8.9" screens (11" would be okay I think, or maybe not).

 

I used to always use my applications maximized, until I moved to my T500 with a 1680x1050 screen. At that resolution, web pages are actually worse (lines of text on forums, for examples, are too wide, so the eye has to travel too far back every line), so I use most of my applications taking up 1/2 to 3/4 of the screen. One exception is MS Word, which I have set to display two 97% pages on maximized.

I find that this way, I can juggle multiple windows much more easily.

 

I would only assume because 1024 is a very popular resolution, not to small, not to big, and like people said, it caters a lot to net books and cell phones.

 

That's the fault of Intel and Microsoft, not the consumer who is actually purchasing technology and attempting to use it. The restrictions Intel and Microsoft put on the netbook platform need to be lifted. It needs to be viewed more like an ultra-portable platform but without the insane markup that title normally brings with it. There are a few netbooks out there that are considerably stronger than your average entry-level laptop too btw. To blanket blame the platform is to ignore all the other various reasons that contribute to why many websites are designed the way they are.