Another rant about website technical issues:
Screen resolution IS NOT the same as browser size!
Years ago we figured out the difference between ‘hits’ and ‘page views’, why can’t we figure this one out?
Google Analytics can’t. Their description of their ‘screen resolution’ report says:
“Which screen resolutions do your visitors use? Optimizing your site for the appropriate technical capabilities helps make your site more engaging and usable, which can lead to higher conversion rates and more sales.”
WTF?
Wait, Jakob Nielsen must have some good detail on browser size:
“Do not design solely for a specific monitor size because screen sizes vary among users. Window size variability is even greater, since users don’t always maximize their browsers (especially if they have large screens).”
Okay, we are getting somewhere here. But Jakob’s article goes on relying solely on screen size data. Here’s a bit more:
“Starting at 1600×1200, users rarely stretch their browser windows to the full screen because few websites work well on such a wide canvas. Big windows are magic for working on spreadsheets, graphic design, and many other tasks, but not for the current paradigm of Web pages. Today, big-screen Web users typically utilize their extra space for multiple windows and parallel browsing. “
Yea, exactly. I have a 1280px wide screen (19″ flat), but run my browser at about 950px wide, so Jakob’s 1600 number is a bit high. Or am I just not normal? Unfortunately, as long as analytic programs like Google’s focus on screen resolution we don’t know.
Some digging, and I found someone who cared to do some research on this subject. Thomas Baekdal took the time to actually physically measure (funny video) users browser screens. Here is a great page with bar-graphs of screen sizes and browser sizes. The full report is here. In summation, he says that to fit 95% of users’ browsers, you site should work in this size range: 720×400 – 1408×912. And these are actual content window dims, as the full browser window will actually be larger.
Wow, 720 width is a lot smaller than the 1024 width that Jakob Nielsen says you should target (or even the 800 minimum he identifies, which Baekdal’s report shows only 85% of users will fit).
And Baekdal’s report shows that I am not normal, as only 25% of users with my screen size run their browsers un-maximized. But 25% of any target market should be too large to ignore. So ignore all that data in your analytics and study Baekdal’s report instead.
Gizmo: Use the MeasureIt Firefox plug-in to measure objects within your browser.
Hey Dave – have you looked at Mint for analytics? It tracks “window width”.http://www.haveamint.com/peppermill/pepper/8/window_width/
Hey Dave – have you looked at Mint for analytics? It tracks “window width”.http://www.haveamint.com/peppermill/pepper/8/window_width/
alright, alright Dave. I’ll get busy resizing all my websites.Mint, huh? That could be cool. I thought mint was an online bookkeeping package. I’ll have to check this one out.Larry HendrickI hate Blogger’s new identity system. Don’t they realize it doesn’t work?
alright, alright Dave. I’ll get busy resizing all my websites.Mint, huh? That could be cool. I thought mint was an online bookkeeping package. I’ll have to check this one out.Larry HendrickI hate Blogger’s new identity system. Don’t they realize it doesn’t work?
Thanks for the tip, Mike…at least someone out there is trying.And Larry, I hope you didn’t think I was picking on you. I went to look at my stats at Google after we talked and things kinda took off from there.
Thanks for the tip, Mike…at least someone out there is trying.And Larry, I hope you didn’t think I was picking on you. I went to look at my stats at Google after we talked and things kinda took off from there.
Dave, I would never think you were picking on me, but now you see why I don’t write humorous articles. Comedy is hard to do. I think it was a timely article that needs even more exploration. Most of us have our own habits and tend to transfer those to everyone else. It’s just a flaw in the way we think, I guess.Looking at my stats, 4.5% of my viewer use monitors at 800×600, but you are correct in pointing out that most users of 1900×1200 dpi screens aren’t running Firefox maximized. Now 95.6% are running higher resolutions , with none lower than 800×600. I would like to see more complete data on this.
Dave, I would never think you were picking on me, but now you see why I don’t write humorous articles. Comedy is hard to do. I think it was a timely article that needs even more exploration. Most of us have our own habits and tend to transfer those to everyone else. It’s just a flaw in the way we think, I guess.Looking at my stats, 4.5% of my viewer use monitors at 800×600, but you are correct in pointing out that most users of 1900×1200 dpi screens aren’t running Firefox maximized. Now 95.6% are running higher resolutions , with none lower than 800×600. I would like to see more complete data on this.