Optimal Page Width?

[C A Upsdell]

I'm gonna nitpick a little (like you expected anything less!)

Many people make the mistake of saying that "readability" is harmed by
long lines of text. This IS NOT the case. Usability studies show that long
lines of text are not shown to have a negative effect on readability until
things get *really* long.

I saw one study that said that 30-70ems was okay. I'm currently using about
50 ems for the content.

I advocate liquid design for an entirely different reason - by filling the
screen, I am ensuring that the user can see as much content as possible
"above the fold". In my experience, content below the fold is a major
problem, especially if there's something on that first screen's worth of
content that gives an impression of finality to the content.

I'll differ a bit here, and suggest that the most CRITICAL content should be
above the fold. If the design ensures this for somewhat narrow browser
windows, then surely it will do so for wider windows with a max-width
specified.

 

[Neal]

I'll differ a bit here, and suggest that the most CRITICAL content
should be
above the fold. If the design ensures this for somewhat narrow browser
windows, then surely it will do so for wider windows with a max-width
specified.

But just as we cannot know the viewport width, we also cannot know the
viewport height.

 

[C A Upsdell]

But just as we cannot know the viewport width, we also cannot know the
viewport height.

Which makes it doubly important to ensure that the CRITICAL information
appears above the fold for the smaller windows: the larger windows will
then take care of themselves.

 

[WebcastMaker]

I advocate liquid design for an entirely different reason - by filling the
screen, I am ensuring that the user can see as much content as possible
"above the fold". In my experience, content below the fold is a major
problem, especially if there's something on that first screen's worth of
content that gives an impression of finality to the content.

But if that above the fold content is unappealing, and difficult to
read, they could leave. Remembering, the typical user probably will not
change their screen size.

Tons of unreadable or annoying content may get more content in front of
the visitor, but the fact that they are annoyed or have difficulty
reading it make them go away.

It is a fine line, and completely depends on the content of the site
which would work better.

 

[WebcastMaker]

I would say that the "content below the fold" is a much bigger problem than
any discomfort the user has over the long lines of text.

According to some like James Landay (UC Berkeley) He agrees that people
do not "read" a webpage word for word, they scan it first for relevant
content, his studies state that it is dependant on the content which may
work better. (fixed width or flowing) He promotes both methodologies.

 

[WebcastMaker]

I'm serious. I've tried fixed and fluid. Fixed width fails. Fluid design
works well, but the design must be for fluid design.

I have no reason to lie to you here. I'm telling you the truth.

The truth is (like you say), to use fluid design the design MUST be for
a fluid design. Some content, just doesn't work well like that.

I am not disagreeing with you, only stating that there are exceptions to
the rule.

 

[Courtney]

The standard is 760 x 420. The 760 allows for the scrollbar on the right,
and the 420 allows for the taskbar at the bottom and the titlebar/menubar at
the bottom and top.

courtney sends...

 

[Neal]

The standard is 760 x 420. The 760 allows for the scrollbar on the right,
and the 420 allows for the taskbar at the bottom and the
titlebar/menubar at
the bottom and top.

Bzzt.

User runs a messaging program on the right side of their 600x800
resolution screen. It tales up 100px. Your site forces them to close or
cover up the messaging program, or move along.

User runs IE with the Search bar on the left. Total viewport is about
650px.

You aren't considering how people really websurf, are you? Stuck in the
ideal, ignoring the real...

 

[Neal]

The truth is (like you say), to use fluid design the design MUST be for
a fluid design. Some content, just doesn't work well like that.

I am not disagreeing with you, only stating that there are exceptions to
the rule.

It's my opinion that designs which cannot be modified in a fluid design
are not web-worthy.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

User runs a messaging program on the right side of their 600x800
resolution screen. It tales up 100px. Your site forces them to close or
cover up the messaging program, or move along.

User runs IE with the Search bar on the left. Total viewport is about
650px.

Add: User isn't using IE, in the first place.

 

[CPA]

The standard is 760 x 420. The 760 allows for the scrollbar on the right,
and the 420 allows for the taskbar at the bottom and the titlebar/menubar at
the bottom and top.

courtney sends...

Was wondering when someone would just cut to the chase and stop all
the artsy-fartsy philosophizing going on about topic. Good for you!
;-)

Charles.Angelich

tech:
http:/www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/
arts:
http:/www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/
music
http:/www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/dos/samples.asp

 

[Karl Burrows]

www.idscharlotte.com

Huh? why should people looking at the website of a non-profit organisation
have smaller monitors than anyone else?
And, if you do want to allow access to people with old computers, why assume
they have 800? They might have a 640 wide screen for example.

Can you post an URL, so we can see the work so far?


How about on a small, high-res device like a laptop TFT? I bet a 800 wide
site looks *tiny*

 

[WebcastMaker]

The standard is 760 x 420. The 760 allows for the scrollbar on the right,
and the 420 allows for the taskbar at the bottom and the titlebar/menubar at
the bottom and top.

Standard? What about the google bar, yahoo bar, and and hot link bar
millions use?

 

[WebcastMaker]

It's my opinion that designs which cannot be modified in a fluid design
are not web-worthy.

And differing opinions are what keeps the web alive for so many.

 

[Noozer]

Bzzt.

User runs a messaging program on the right side of their 600x800
resolution screen. It tales up 100px. Your site forces them to close or
cover up the messaging program, or move along.

User runs IE with the Search bar on the left. Total viewport is about
650px.

You aren't considering how people really websurf, are you? Stuck in the
ideal, ignoring the real...

I agree... Don't built your page to fit a certain size. Design it so it will
funtion at any size.

Firefox lets fonts scale indefinately. Users have odd sized desktops - don't
forget widescreen is starting to get popular on the desktop. Some folks have
multiple windows open at once...

 

[Daniel R. Tobias]

The standard is 760 x 420. The 760 allows for the scrollbar on the right,
and the 420 allows for the taskbar at the bottom and the titlebar/menubar at
the bottom and top.

Whose standard? None of the W3C standards for the Web, that I know
of, specify any "standard" width. It's much more in the spirit of the
Web to let pages flexibly adjust to whatever conditions in which they
may find themselves.

Don't top-post.
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html

 

[Chris Beall]

www.idscharlotte.com

The current site creates a small horizontal scroll bar on my setup.
Just enough to make me scroll to see if there's anything important there
(there isn't).

I'm using a 600 X 800 screen with the browser full-screen and no add-on
tools. IE 5.5 and NN 7.1 both show the same scroll bar.

Try this test: Using Netscape (or most anything other than IE), increase
the text size to 200% and watch what happens to various pages.
Designing for a fixed environment works poorly when the environment is
not truly fixed.

Chris Beall

 

[Day Brown]

I have tried to design pages at 100%, but there are just too many design
issues with title images, filling blank space with images (since they don't
work well in older browsers and Netscape as background images). I have
decided the best practice is to design them for 800x600 screens. That being
said, what would be the actual optimal width for design so that I include
space for scroll bar, etc.? I have read 750, but that seems to squeeze it a
bit tighter than it really needs to be.

Thanks!

Lay out the text any way yee want. Capture it with a graphic tool, and
make a 16 color GIF out of it. (the 16color gif is a smaller image file,
hence faster to load for those of us with 56k modems) Then, when yee
import the GIF, select custom size, and there yee will have the option
to make it 100% of the screen width. (and 100% of the height) regardless
of how large the user's browser window is.

One of the things I liked about DOS text mode, is that yee can designate
how many lines the screen has, 25, 28, 32, 43, 50, 60... and the VESA
cards will support 80, 94, 100, 128, 160 char lines. if anyone knows how
to control the text displayed on a webpage like this, I'd sure like a
clue. cc to daybrown; my isp is hypertech.net

 

[Neal]

Lay out the text any way yee want. Capture it with a graphic tool, and
make a 16 color GIF out of it. (the 16color gif is a smaller image file,
hence faster to load for those of us with 56k modems) Then, when yee
import the GIF, select custom size, and there yee will have the option
to make it 100% of the screen width. (and 100% of the height) regardless
of how large the user's browser window is.

Great. You're advocating text as image. Can't be resized in most user's
browsers, can't be read by speech readers.

What the **** are you doing giving advice?

 

[Jeffrey Silverman]

Great. You're advocating text as image. Can't be resized in most user's
browsers, can't be read by speech readers.

What the **** are you doing giving advice?

I have a feeling he was joking. At least I hope he was.