A current Digg topic asks, "Yahoo releases a beta preview of their new site, and excludes 800x600 viewing without horizontal scroll bars. Could this set the standard?"In over 200 comments, the point wasn't made that just when most desktop screens are reaching 1280x1024 sizes, we're seeing a whole new crop of devices with alternative resolutions.The original poster has an interesting graphic of resolutions at the dugg URL: SkeyMedia » Blog Archive » Is it Time to Abandon 800×600? A couple things jumped out at me. First, people are using HDTV resolutions to surf his site. Way to go, home theater PCs! But I also noticed not a single result appears to be in portrait mode. Could it be that the stats don't know which way someone has their screen turned? I, for example, have a Gateway convertible. I use this Tablet PC in "portrait" mode, so it's the same shape and size as a traditional paper pad. This is comfortable to write on, and even more comfortable to surf the web on. This puts the horizontal resolution at 768, and vertical resolution at 1280. Subtract the scrollbar and browser chrome pixels, and an 800x600 site won't fit. My solution was to install the Opera browser and surf at 90%, but now those sites are just a little less legible, and I spend a little less time there.Now Microsoft is pushing a new ultra mobile PC (UMPC) platform, and we're seeing resolutions of 800x480 (some real, some simulated). DVDs are 720x480. The PSP is even smaller. I've got a QTEK 9100 phone with a 320x240 display. More and more truly portable devices, designed to take advantage of the web while on the go, will have similar resolutions.Designers, publishers, listen up: remember the web is supposed to be device independant. Table design broke that meme, but XHTML+CSS2 gave it back to us. Don't design your site so visitors can only look at a little corner of it, or your site will be relegated to a little corner of the web.