till look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you

If you know much about your computer, you're familiar with your desktop's resolution. Whether it's still set at 800x600 or set at 1280x1024, like mine is, it affects how websites look on your computer.

There's two different ways a website can be designed. They can have a fluid width, where the site probably takes up 100% of your screen's width, or at least it changes when you change the size of your browser. The other option is what is called static width. The site is 700 pixels wide. Or any other set number of pixels wide. When you resize your browser (or desktop), the content is still that same number of pixels wide. Just the empty space on the right (and possibly left) changes.

So which of these should you use? There are those that swear by the fluid width. They insist that any webpage should adjust to the size of their browser. There are others that complain that there aren't as many design options if you don't use a static width. Obviously, there are trade-offs either way. Personally, I've used both methods, depending on what was more important to me with that particular site.

What resolution should you design for? Even if you're using a fluid width, there is still a minimum resolution your design can go to and still look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you m

y takes up 100% of your screen's width, or at least it changes when you change the size of your browser. The other option is what is called static width. The site is 700 pixels wide. Or any other set number of pixels wide. When you resize your browser (or desktop), the content is still that same number of pixels wide. Just the empty space on the right (and possibly left) changes.

So which of these should you use? There are those that swear by the fluid width. They insist that any webpage should adjust to the size of their browser. There are others that complain that there aren't as many design options if you don't use a static width. Obviously, there are trade-offs either way. Personally, I've used both methods, depending on what was more important to me with that particular site.

What resolution should you design for? Even if you're using a fluid width, there is still a minimum resolution your design can go to and still look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you

wide. Just the empty space on the right (and possibly left) changes.

So which of these should you use? There are those that swear by the fluid width. They insist that any webpage should adjust to the size of their browser. There are others that complain that there aren't as many design options if you don't use a static width. Obviously, there are trade-offs either way. Personally, I've used both methods, depending on what was more important to me with that particular site.

What resolution should you design for? Even if you're using a fluid width, there is still a minimum resolution your design can go to and still look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you

use a static width. Obviously, there are trade-offs either way. Personally, I've used both methods, depending on what was more important to me with that particular site.

What resolution should you design for? Even if you're using a fluid width, there is still a minimum resolution your design can go to and still look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you

till look good. How many websites now would look good at 640x480? Not many, but it's okay, because that resolution is relatively rare now.

Currently 1024x768 is the most widely used resolution. That's really the widest resolution you should design for at this point. However, if your audience is older, you might make the assumption that with their eyesight tending to be poorer, you should design for 800x600. Many, if not all, computers can still be set to that low resolution.

Whether your design is static or fluid, you should allow for at least a small amount of empty space on either the right (if your site is aligned on the left of the screen) or on both sides (if your site is centered, which I personally prefer.) A good guideline for static width sites is to design at 75-100 pixels smaller than the width you're shooting for. In other words, if you're designing for 800x600, you would make your site 700-725 pixels wide. And if it's a fluid width, leave 5% or so on each side.

Of course, all of these are just guidelines. Take all websites on a case by case basis. There are often instances where a particular website doesn't fit the mold. When that's the case, you'll have to make a decision that just applies to that site.