I have a SW that the minimal screen size requirement is 1024x768, 800x600 may be too small, 1024x768 would be too big? Maybe something in between? What screen size is better or the best? Thanks.
+4
A:
Are you asking what size you should design your application for?? If so, the best "size" would be a flowing layout that allows the user to set whatever size suits them and their monitor.
Software Monkey
2009-02-27 05:11:28
+1
A:
Check out the browser display statistics at w3schools, it might be a good start. But beware, as they say:
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. This fact indicates that the figures below might not be 100% realistic. The average user might have display screens with a lower resolution.
It's all up to how well you can determine your user segment.
ciscoheat
2009-02-27 05:11:40
+2
A:
Nowdays, 1024x768 is the standard and preferred screen size. Most of the web based applications, web-sites design their sites as per 1024x768 standard. But, you could go for a lesser intial size if yours is a desktop allipcation. But then you have to make sure that UI doesn't go bad when you maximize the application to a higher resolution.
Chandan .
2009-02-27 05:12:06
+2
A:
You can set your minimum size to whatever you want, as long as your software looks nice on all sizes greater than that.
I'd be surprised if many people still ran 800x600 but they may, and you will be limiting your market by not handling it. Personally, I don't think that would be much of a limit.
In addition, there's not a lot between 800x600 and 1024x768, they're the two "standard" resolutions right next to each other. So if you think 1024x768 is too big (it's not), 800x600 is the next option down.
paxdiablo
2009-02-27 05:12:30
A:
[I assume you are referring to a desktop application]
Though 1024x768 is a reasonable screen resolution which is supported by all recent monitors (purchased in last 4 years I guess), yet I most software still work with 800x600.
What makes your software require that resolution? I hope you dont have a dialog which is that big. If there are some, consider splitting them into tab sheets or wizards.
Hemant
2009-02-27 05:13:40
+2
A:
Only dialog boxes should be fixed size, and not all of them. All other UI windows should use flow-based layout so as to adapt to the available window. There is extensive support for the management of dynamic layout in WinForms and even better support in XAML.
You may well have seen websites designed for fixed width but this is IMHO a sign of either incompetence or laziness. Or possibly a triumph of form over function.
None of these is a good excuse. They all look ridiculous on my 3840x1200 display (two linked 1920x1200 monitors) and come the revolution, designers of fixed-layout UI will be the first up against the wallscreen.
Peter Wone
2009-02-27 05:31:21
‘Only dialogs’... and of course if you've got a dialog box that needs more than 800x600, it's very unlikely to be at all usable and you should probably consider refactoring the interface.
bobince
2009-02-27 13:58:45
A:
it doesn't matter if you can't find a 1024x768 or lower monitor these days. even if everybody has 1920x1200, why should your app be the only one on screen? the idea of windowing GUIs is to use several windows at the same time.
i, for one, never use the 'maximize' button. even really immersive apps (think CADs) should leave some space for other tools.
Javier
2009-02-27 06:12:55
That's interesting - I actually maximize *everything* since I generally want to concentrate on one thing at a time without distraction (my wife doesn't do that but she explains that it's because I'm a man and can't do more than one thing concurrently :-)
paxdiablo
2009-02-27 07:21:18
this is a very common vice. i think the responsibles are 1: bad UI designers that leave very little usable area on each window and 2:MDI, which obscures everything not inside it's 'window' (how can you call 'window' something that's effectively the whole screen? it makes no sense at all)
Javier
2009-02-27 13:46:38
+1
A:
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned netbooks. If your application could conceivably run on a netbook, you may want to consider resolutions lower than 1024x768. For instance, the 7" Asus EeePC has a resolution of 800x480 and the 9" to 10" models typically have a resolution of 1024x600.
EDIT: Agreed that a flowing layout should be used regardless, but I was talking about the minimum size that should work.
Adam K. Johnson
2009-02-27 06:28:23
+1
A:
For a Windows app, design it for 800x600. That way users with 1024x768 screens don't need to maximize the Window to see everything (and the few users with 800x600 screens can still view it).
Jess
2009-02-27 06:35:45
A:
The ultimate thing you need to do is to find out what your target audience is running, or is likely to run. That said, your applications should be able to cope with nearly any reasonable screen resolution. It doesn't have to look pretty at excessively low resolutions, but it does have to be functional at excessively low resolutions. I know several applications that lack the functional-at-low-resolutions part, and they are rather annoying.
If your application is something that is more crucial than usual, you'll want to make even more sure that it will work in resolution-constrained environments. For both Windows and Linux systems, the default fail-safe resolution (depending on the system) is either 640x480 or 800x600. If you expect your application to be considered critical, it should be able to work in even such restrictive conditions.
Michael Trausch
2009-02-27 06:46:11