Maximum safe width for web pages?

[SBR]

I asked the original question so I could ensure the tables didn't involve
horizontal scrolling for the majority of visitors, who will be viewing in
800x600. My "I don't care" comment meant that I don't care about people
that are viewing the site in 640x480 on their 1985 Tandys or people that
have their browser windows half the size of their 13" monitors.

 

[SBR]

There is an implied assumption, however, namely that the user with an
800x600 resolution has their browser set to full-screen mode. This is a
very chancy assumption: people commonly resize their browser windows to
sizes smaller than the full-screen size, and this is something which you
will not find in the stats of your website visitors.

I am of the notion that if someone is browsing in 800x600 and they have
their screen width set to 400pixels, that is their problem. They should know
from past experience that they will have horizontal scrolling on a lot of
their sites they visit.

The best width is 100% ... perhaps with max-width set to prevent pages from
growing so wide that they become hard to read on very wide browser

windows.

I have had way too many problems in the past with my site looking screwed up
when using percentages. Perhaps I was doing my html incorrectly, but it
saves me a lot of headaches to just use fixed widths.

I don't understand though why developers think it's our job to ensure
compliance with everyone. I am perfectly satisfied with ensuring my site
looks good with the overwhelming majority. At what point is too much? Do I
create my site in different languages too? How do I know all my visitors
will be speaking English? Do I have to ensure my site is viewable by
people with browsers half open on small resolutions but not Russians?
Should all web sites on the Internet get rid of javascript in case users
don't have it enabled?

 

[SBR]

The most helpful answer I've gotten. Not only did you actually answer my
question, you informed me that a fixed width isn't safe in a thoughtful and
polite manner.

 

[Mark Parnell]

I never complained about the answer you gave me, someone else did.

You replied to my post, saying:

If you were complaining about someone else, you should have replied to
them.

While your answer did not help me at all, I did find it informative.

It's a start.

 

[Mark Parnell]

I think you're missing my point though. I don't have the time or desire to
learn CSS for one web site.

I didn't suggest you do (though it would be ideal).

It would take ME more effort to make my site
viewable by all configurations than I am willing to put forth.

Just use % widths on your tables instead of px. Surely that's not that
hard?

And as my
image example has shown, unless I am making a site with nothing but text, it
is impossible to make it completely fluid.

To a degree, images put constraints on the fluidity of a site, yes. That
is unfortunate, but they are inherently fixed-width. That doesn't mean
the entire site has to be one set width though. OK, so you have an image
that is 400px wide. That just means that the site is going to have a
horizontal scrollbar at anything less than 400px. It doesn't mean it has
to be exactly 780px (or whatever).

Your own site causes horizontal scrolling when I unminimize my browser.

On my browser (Moz) I get a horizontal scrollbar at about 740px wide. On
IE I don't get one until about 360px. I am working on that, though.
Never said I was perfect.

 

[Noozer]

I asked the original question so I could ensure the tables didn't involve
horizontal scrolling for the majority of visitors, who will be viewing in
800x600. My "I don't care" comment meant that I don't care about people
that are viewing the site in 640x480 on their 1985 Tandys or people that
have their browser windows half the size of their 13" monitors.

If you don't care, why did you ask?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named SBR:

That's why I like tables. If I want a certain paragraph to sit next
to a certain picture, I can force it that way. I don't have to
worry about someone enlarging their font size to 40 and screwing up
the way I want the site to look.

You don't need tables to present text next to images. See this site of
mine:

http://www.freezeblock.com/

Notice, too, that everything floats no matter how large or small your
browser window is. You won't see any horizontal scrollbars until you
get narrowed to the width of the banner graphic (which the client
won't relinquish) or about 515 px. Even if you go narrower, the text
still floats within the browser viewport.

Find the link to "home damage" on the main page for example of
floating images at various window sizes.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

then maybe .5% of my visitors will be inconvenienced and
actually have to take the effort to hit the maximize button.

According to my stats about 30%-40% of people surf with their browsers NOT
maximised.

 

[Karl Groves]

yes... 15,000px is a very safe width indeed.

Of course it is. Even more safe than 100%, that most likely causes
horizontal scrolling if you don't do something.

(that is because rule with value "15,000px" is ignored, of course)[/QUOTE]

You sure about that?
http://karlcore.com/usenet/15000.html

-Karl

 

[rf]

Of course it is. Even more safe than 100%, that most likely causes
horizontal scrolling if you don't do something.

(that is because rule with value "15,000px" is ignored, of course)

You sure about that?
http://karlcore.com/usenet/15000.html[/QUOTE]

15,000px - with a comma

Cheers
Richard.

 

[The Doormouse]

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

Oh ... goody! I love hard data!!

Thank you =)

The Doormouse

 

[Karl Groves]

I asked the original question so I could ensure the tables didn't involve
horizontal scrolling for the majority of visitors, who will be viewing in
800x600. My "I don't care" comment meant that I don't care about people
that are viewing the site in 640x480 on their 1985 Tandys or people that
have their browser windows half the size of their 13" monitors.

You could have saved a lot of typing by just posting "I don't give a shit
about the user"

-Karl

 

[Karl Groves]

I have had way too many problems in the past with my site looking screwed up
when using percentages. Perhaps I was doing my html incorrectly, but it
saves me a lot of headaches to just use fixed widths.

So learn how to do it right instead of using workarounds

I don't understand though why developers think it's our job to ensure
compliance with everyone.

I think some people do have a dogmatic stance on this. At some point there
*is* diminished return.
However, that does not preclude the notion that you shouldn't make a
reasonable effort to make it work for everyone.
The truth of the matter is, a knowledgeable developer will understand enough
about this matter to maximize the suitability for the audience.
People treat this like it is rocket science. It really isn't much more
effort to do it right once you understand the potential roadblocks.

Do I create my site in different languages too?

What is your target audience?
If you design for a multinational corporation, then you definitely should.
If you design for a local real estate agent in Kalamazoo, then no.

Should all web sites on the Internet get rid of javascript in case users
don't have it enabled?

No, but sites should still be usable if client-side scripting is off.
Javascript should add to the experience, but not take away from the
experience when it is not supported by the client.

-Karl

 

[Lauri Raittila]

You sure about that?
http://karlcore.com/usenet/15000.html

"15,000px" != "15000px"

 

[Whitecrest]

You could have saved a lot of typing by just posting "I don't give a shit
about the user"

No, he means he gives a bigger shit about the people that are likely to
visit the site, rather than caring blindly [pun not intended] for
everyone and loosing the people that were likely to visit to another
site, that interestingly enough, probably does it the way he wanted to.

 

[Whitecrest]

I think some people do have a dogmatic stance on this. At some point there
*is* diminished return.
However, that does not preclude the notion that you shouldn't make a
reasonable effort to make it work for everyone.

Absolutely! TRY to make it accessible to all. But when you hit a level
of accessibility that causes you to lose customers, then you have to
start to consider other options. This is most prevalent in
entertainment type sites, or broadband multi-media presentations, but
there are other exceptions as well.

 

[Neal]

What is your target audience?
If you design for a multinational corporation, then you definitely
should.
If you design for a local real estate agent in Kalamazoo, then no.

Well, if Kalamazoo is like most US cities, a Spanish version wouldn't be a
bad idea...

 

[Karl Groves]

Well, if Kalamazoo is like most US cities, a Spanish version wouldn't be a
bad idea...

I guess if Hispanics are in the target client base...

-Karl

 

[Whitecrest]

I guess if Hispanics are in the target client base...

So is it discrimination if I go to a Spanish site and can't read it?
They are in fact discriminating against non-spanish speaking people. Or
would you consider that "catering" to a specific audience? And if it
is just catering, then are you also not justified in catering to other
groups of surfers?

 

[Barry Pearson]

Oh. So what do I do if I have an image that is 200 width? I guess I
shouldn't use it in case your window is only opened up to 100 width.

[snip]

This is an unresolvable problem, because the web specifications & technology
don't provide a convenient answer.

How wide should your next image be? Photographers face this question every
day. My answer is "700px". Others differ.