Maximum safe width for web pages?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by SBR, May 3, 2004.

  1. SBR

    SBR Guest

    Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for 640x480
    is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?
    SBR, May 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SBR

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <2uflc.142317$>,
    says...
    > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for 640x480
    > is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?


    Safe? No width is safe.
    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:27:58 GMT, "SBR" <> declared in
    alt.html:

    > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for 640x480
    > is 595,


    Really? How do you know that?

    > so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?


    Stop making assumptions. Like assuming that your visitor will have a
    screen resolution of 800x600. And that even if they do, they will have
    their browser window maximised. And that even if both of those are true,
    they won't have a sidebar open.

    http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #3
  4. SBR

    Desireless Guest

    On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:53:03 +1000, Mark Parnell
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:27:58 GMT, "SBR" <> declared in
    >alt.html:
    >
    >> Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for 640x480
    >> is 595,

    >
    >Really? How do you know that?
    >
    >> so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?

    >
    >Stop making assumptions. Like assuming that your visitor will have a
    >screen resolution of 800x600. And that even if they do, they will have
    >their browser window maximised. And that even if both of those are true,
    >they won't have a sidebar open.
    >
    >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign


    Why don't you nail him up while you're all at it.
    Desireless, May 3, 2004
    #4
  5. SBR

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "SBR" <> wrote in message
    news:2uflc.142317$...
    > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for

    640x480
    > is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?



    Yep, you're about right. Between 50 and 100 off either access. You really
    should design for a flexible area unless your layout (or audience) dictate
    otherwise, but then that's for you to decide.
    SpaceGirl, May 3, 2004
    #5
  6. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:01:14 +0100, Desireless
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > Why don't you nail him up while you're all at it.


    This is usenet, not a helpdesk.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #6
  7. SBR

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:9zkl9oze7h19$...
    > On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:01:14 +0100, Desireless
    > <> declared in alt.html:
    >
    > > Why don't you nail him up while you're all at it.

    >
    > This is usenet, not a helpdesk.
    >
    > --
    > Mark Parnell
    > http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au


    Place for you to show your true colours, huh? Obnoxious git :)
    SpaceGirl, May 3, 2004
    #7
  8. SBR

    SBR Guest

    Why not?

    "Whitecrest" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <2uflc.142317$>,
    > says...
    > > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for

    640x480
    > > is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?

    >
    > Safe? No width is safe.
    > --
    > Whitecrest Entertainment
    > www.whitecrestent.com
    SBR, May 3, 2004
    #8
  9. SBR

    SBR Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:1hqn0z6y71e8e.63om9uh7hvm8$...
    > On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:27:58 GMT, "SBR" <> declared in
    > alt.html:
    >
    > > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for

    640x480
    > > is 595,

    >
    > Really? How do you know that?


    I got it from a W3 document several years ago.

    > Stop making assumptions. Like assuming that your visitor will have a
    > screen resolution of 800x600. And that even if they do, they will have
    > their browser window maximised. And that even if both of those are true,
    > they won't have a sidebar open.


    I'm not. I'm assuming they will have at LEAST resolution of 800x600.
    Judging by the statistics of my web site visitors, no one is browsing my
    page with a lower resolution, so it's not an assumption. And I am not
    interested in catering to anyone who is using a 9" monitor and Windows 3.11
    and is browsing in a 480 resolution. I won't sacrifice that much space for
    1 visitor out of 500, or whatever the statistic may be. Hell, I wouldn't
    give up the additional screenspace for 1 visitor out of 100. And if someone
    is browsing the site with their browser not maximized, that is their
    problem. They know that by having their browser open halfway, they're not
    going to see a lot of web pages correctly. I am reasonable about
    accessability, but not of the mindset that I have to make my site viewable
    by every single possible instance of visitor. If I did, my page would have
    to be completely text and black and white.
    SBR, May 3, 2004
    #9
  10. SBR

    SBR Guest

    So you have decided that you can't ask questions in Usenet? I must have
    missed that rule in the alt.usenet.rules FAQ.

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:9zkl9oze7h19$...
    > On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:01:14 +0100, Desireless
    > <> declared in alt.html:
    >
    > > Why don't you nail him up while you're all at it.

    >
    > This is usenet, not a helpdesk.
    >
    > --
    > Mark Parnell
    > http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    SBR, May 3, 2004
    #10
  11. SBR

    SBR Guest

    Thanks. Unfortunately I have little experience with CSS and no time to
    learn right now. I'm doing a site for a friend, and web design is not my
    full time job, so I'm making it a fixed size. Besides, I don't really want
    users to be able to change the width of the page, as I've allocated images
    and text around each other so they will flow a certain way. I don't want
    someone with a 2000 width resolution seeing all of a page's text at the very
    top of the screen and the rest just having images.

    I appreciate it!


    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote in message
    news:c7424c$hso71$-berlin.de...
    >
    > "SBR" <> wrote in message
    > news:2uflc.142317$...
    > > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for

    > 640x480
    > > is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?

    >
    >
    > Yep, you're about right. Between 50 and 100 off either access. You really
    > should design for a flexible area unless your layout (or audience) dictate
    > otherwise, but then that's for you to decide.
    >
    >
    SBR, May 3, 2004
    #11
  12. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 3 May 2004 01:08:11 +0100, "SpaceGirl"
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > Place for you to show your true colours, huh?


    That's not quite what I meant, but something like that. :)

    > Obnoxious git :)


    No, it just frustrates me when people complain because they don't like
    the answers they get, as though they are entitled to only get answers
    they like. If they want answers they like, they can pay someone to give
    them. If they want the truth, I'm only too happy to oblige. :)

    Call it my blunt Aussie nature if it helps. ;-)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #12
  13. SBR

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 3 May 2004 01:08:11 +0100, "SpaceGirl"
    > <> declared in alt.html:
    >
    > > Place for you to show your true colours, huh?

    >
    > That's not quite what I meant, but something like that. :)
    >
    > > Obnoxious git :)

    >
    > No, it just frustrates me when people complain because they don't like
    > the answers they get, as though they are entitled to only get answers
    > they like. If they want answers they like, they can pay someone to give
    > them. If they want the truth, I'm only too happy to oblige. :)
    >
    > Call it my blunt Aussie nature if it helps. ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Mark Parnell
    > http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au



    HEhhehe. Okay, I can live with that :D
    SpaceGirl, May 3, 2004
    #13
  14. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 00:36:51 GMT, "SBR" <> declared in
    alt.html:

    > So you have decided that you can't ask questions in Usenet? I must have
    > missed that rule in the alt.usenet.rules FAQ.


    Who said anything about not asking questions? You just can't expect to
    always get the answer you want.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #14
  15. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 00:32:18 GMT, "SBR" <> declared in
    alt.html:

    > I'm not. I'm assuming they will have at LEAST resolution of 800x600.


    See - you're making unfounded assumptions again.

    Besides, if their available browser canvas is more than 800px wide (or
    whatever random figure you settle on), they will have wasted space
    around your site.

    > Judging by the statistics of my web site visitors, no one is browsing my
    > page with a lower resolution, so it's not an assumption.


    You're assuming that your stats are accurate. Screen resolution cannot
    be determined accurately (nor is it relevant anyway), therefore the
    stats are not necessarily accurate (they may be, but you have no way of
    knowing).

    > And if someone
    > is browsing the site with their browser not maximized, that is their
    > problem.


    Which makes it your problem, unless you want them to leave. A lot of
    users don't have their browser window maximised. IE for one (not sure
    about others) isn't even maximised by default. And even if they do have
    it maximised, what about sidebars (e.g. the favourites bar in IE)?

    > They know that by having their browser open halfway, they're not
    > going to see a lot of web pages correctly.


    So they will appreciate it when a site actually does fit without them
    having to scroll horizontally.

    > I am reasonable about
    > accessability, but not of the mindset that I have to make my site viewable
    > by every single possible instance of visitor.


    Isn't that what accessibility is? Making the site accessible to as many
    visitors as possible?

    But we're not talking about making the site viewable or not. We are
    talking about making it fit to the visitors chosen browser canvas size.
    We are assuming that they can already see the site. It is simply a
    question of either making your site fit to one specific size, or to any
    size.

    > If I did, my page would have to be completely text and black and white.


    I hope you don't actually believe that.
    http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html

    You are missing the point. The web is inherently fluid. It takes more
    effort to make it a fixed size than it does to allow it to be fluid as
    it should. Design your site to work with that fluidity, not against it.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #15
  16. SBR

    Vladdy Guest

    SBR wrote:
    > Can anyone tell me what this is? I know the maximum safe width for 640x480
    > is 595, so I'm assuming for 800x600 it's around 755?
    >
    >

    The only safe width I know of is 100%


    --
    Vladdy
    http://www.klproductions.com
    Vladdy, May 3, 2004
    #16
  17. SBR

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <9zkl9oze7h19$>,
    says...
    > > Why don't you nail him up while you're all at it.

    > This is usenet, not a helpdesk.


    It's not RUDE-net either...
    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 3, 2004
    #17
  18. SBR

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <Jkglc.52701$>,
    says...
    > > Safe? No width is safe.

    > Why not?


    Because you don't know how big my window is.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 3, 2004
    #18
  19. SBR

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <7whlc.49763$>,
    says...
    > The only safe width I know of is 100%


    Well any percentage is safe.
    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 3, 2004
    #19
  20. SBR

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AndrewF
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    760
    Bruce Barker
    Oct 10, 2005
  2. Torsten Landschoff
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,804
    Torsten Landschoff
    Feb 22, 2007
  3. Gernot Frisch

    iframe with maximum width

    Gernot Frisch, Dec 4, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    553
    Gernot Frisch
    Dec 4, 2006
  4. Maximum width

    , Apr 15, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    347
    Edwin van der Vaart
    Apr 15, 2007
  5. phanhuyich
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    264
Loading...

Share This Page