Web Site Width

Discussion in 'HTML' started by shapper, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. shapper

    shapper Guest

    Hello,

    I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    have 1280x800px.

    What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    somewhere between 920px and 960px.

    Could someone advice me on this?

    A side note:
    Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
    the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
    will have 1280x800px or higher.

    Thanks,
    Miguel
    shapper, Apr 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. shapper

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:27:09 -0400, Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    >shapper wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    >> have 1280x800px.
    >>
    >> What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    >> somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    >>
    >> Could someone advice me on this?
    >>
    >> A side note:
    >> Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
    >> the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
    >> will have 1280x800px or higher.

    >
    >Assuming you're right and I visit your site with a screen res of 1280 x
    >960 (which I won't, mine is 1280 x 1024), what size do you think my
    >browser window will be? And how will you know?
    >
    >Even if my browser is maximized I use SeaMonkey with the sidebar
    >showing; at various widths depending on my mood. Which changes during
    >browsing sessions. How will you know?


    Awstats will show me what browser settings are. Broken down by the
    various sizes.

    >
    >And sometimes I have my browser less-than-maximized in a variety of
    >possible sizes. What then? How will you know?


    same as above

    >
    >I sense that you're about to tell us you want to design a fixed-width,
    >pixel-specific sized site.
    >
    >I'm not going to but I'm pretty sure you're about to be told in 40
    >different ways why this is doomed to failure and a "really bad idea."
    >
    >Let the games begin ...
    richard, Apr 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. shapper

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper <>
    wrote:

    >Hello,
    >
    >I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    >have 1280x800px.
    >
    >What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    >somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    >
    >Could someone advice me on this?
    >
    >A side note:
    >Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
    >the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
    >will have 1280x800px or higher.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Miguel




    Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead.
    So if you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.
    richard, Apr 22, 2008
    #3
  4. shapper

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Hello,
    > >
    > >I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    > >have 1280x800px.
    > >
    > >What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    > >somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    > >
    > >Could someone advice me on this?
    > >
    > >A side note:
    > >Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
    > >the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
    > >will have 1280x800px or higher.
    > >
    > >Thanks,
    > >Miguel

    >
    >
    >
    > Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead.
    > So if you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.


    It is not fine at all. It may not be the end of the world, but it is not
    a good practice and that is that. 800px wide browsers are nowhere near
    dead, they are alive and well on many screens no matter how big.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #4
  5. shapper

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, shapper <> wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    > have 1280x800px.
    >
    > What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    > somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    >
    > Could someone advice me on this?
    >
    > A side note:
    > Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and
    > the knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people
    > will have 1280x800px or higher.



    It often is possible to design a web page so that it views the way
    intended on most screen widths. People with newer PCs may have screen
    widths well over 1000 px. Those with some portable and hand held
    devices may have screen widths of 245 px or less. Do not design for a
    certain screen size unless you must in certain situations.

    As an example, view
    http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/section3b.php#l9 on any screen
    size from about 245 px to well over 1000 px. Notice how the screen is
    filled with about the same percentage of margin on both the left and
    right. If you have an Opera browser, just press "Shift" and "F11"
    together. This will bring up a very small screen width of about 245
    px, but the page still views properly. Most other browers will allow
    selection of at least 2 or 3 screen widths, but usually not as low as
    245 px.

    The next question is how is this done. The answer is in the CSS style,
    an external style sheet for the example given. View the external
    stylesheet at http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/style.css . The
    only reason the style sheet is external is to avoid duplication, since
    the same style is used on several pages. Look at the style sheet
    specification for body. Note that body contains left and right margins
    specified in percentages of width rather than specific numerical
    units. This is the secret of why the page views properly on an extreme
    range of widths.

    Disregard the xhtml Doctype used. It should be used only by those who
    have associated the proper mime type for true xhtml on the server;
    otherwise the xhtml page just gets served as html despite the xhtml
    notation. Also some tricks must be used for browsers that can not
    handle true xhtml served properly, such as all IE browsers. So write
    the page in html 4.01 strict unless you are doing all of the xhtml
    related things mentioned.
    cwdjrxyz, Apr 22, 2008
    #5
  6. shapper wrote:

    > I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will
    > have 1280x800px.


    Are all these visitors in your office, and you know for a fact that they
    all have maximized browser windows on the office-standard LCD screen?

    > What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    > somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    >
    > Could someone advice me on this?


    It's a simple answer:
    http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=flex

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 22, 2008
    #6
  7. shapper

    dorayme Guest

    In article <fuk47j$e64$>, "mrcakey" <>
    wrote:

    > Something I really tend to forget is to keep my page sizes down properly.


    Have you had any experience on dial-up making websites? There are
    lessons hard to forget.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #7
  8. richard wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT), shapper <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>I am working on a centered web site where I think most visitors will have
    >>1280x800px.
    >>
    >>What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    >>somewhere between 920px and 960px.
    >>
    >>Could someone advice me on this?
    >>
    >>A side note:
    >>Should I design for 800x600px? As far as the statistics I've seen and the
    >>knowledge I have from this type of web site audience most people will
    >>have 1280x800px or higher.
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Miguel

    >
    >
    >
    > Fine. From stats I've seen on my site, 800x600 is practically dead. So if
    > you were to set width to 1000, that should be fine for most.


    I have a 1920 x 1200 monitor.

    But I run my browsers in half that: 960 x 1200.

    What will your stats say tell you about that that?

    Lots of people are aware of things other than "Minimized" and "Maximized".


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #8
  9. mrcakey wrote:

    > In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things better
    > pricewise in the yUK


    I've been trying to figure out if that was a typo. I can't. :)


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #9
  10. shapper

    Dylan Parry Guest

    mrcakey wrote:

    >> Here in The States, cable broadband (as best as I can tell) seems to be
    >> about $45/mo for the medium-high (~4meg+) speed. 6-8 meg speeds are
    >> sometimes available for around 30% more.
    >>

    > In that case it's one of the VERY few occasions when we have things better
    > pricewise in the yUK, though it's partly a result of several large media
    > companies offering "free" broadband as part of larger television or phone
    > packages


    Indeed. My broadband is supplied by Sky, and I pay £10 a month for an
    16Mbit uncapped service. That's just under $20US by today's exchange
    rates. That said, it's ADSL, so I don't get close to what I'm paying for
    in terms of speed, but for me it's the "uncapped" bit that won me over,
    as the next product down (8Mbit for £5pm, I think it was) had a monthly cap.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

    The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
    those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
    Dylan Parry, Apr 22, 2008
    #10
  11. shapper

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 22 Apr, 08:24, "mrcakey" <> wrote:
    > "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote in message


    > > As an example, view
    > >http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com/wine/section3b.php#l9on any screen
    > > size from about 245 px to well over 1000 px. Notice how the screen is

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Wow. How did you make such a complex and beautiful design work so well at
    > various screen widths?


    You've got invalid markup - the <sarcasm> tag was missing.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 22, 2008
    #11
  12. shapper

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 22 Apr, 02:15, shapper <> wrote:

    > What is the width usually used in this cases? I am trying to decide
    > somewhere between 920px and 960px.


    max-width: 52em; for the "content" column. This avoids text lines that
    are unreadably long. Don't worry if IE ignores it, it's not crucial.

    width in pixels _POSSIBLY_ if your site is basically an image gallery
    and it will break badly otherwise.

    Apart from that, don't mess with fixing rigid widths. You either can't
    or you shouldn't. Users will show up with browser windows of all sizes
    and shapes, you just have to cope with what they bring you. Look up
    "fluid design".

    Also 800px widths are increasingly common recently, as mobiles and set-
    top devices become more popular.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 22, 2008
    #12
  13. mrcakey wrote:

    > Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to
    > be on broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where
    > it's uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. ...


    There was a stat published late last year (no, I don't remember the
    link) that said U.S. dialup usage was still at least 40% of internet
    users. One of the techs in my ISP's help groups said just recently he
    believes it is closer to half.

    The U.S. is still quite a rural country. I am in an 'almost' rural area,
    have 10Mbps cable (last house on the line), but no DSL available.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 22, 2008
    #13
  14. mrcakey wrote:

    > Is there a percentage of US surfers that are basically never going to be on
    > broadband? I'm thinking "folks" out on the prairies etc where it's
    > uneconomical for companies to supply broadband. Here in the UK it's as
    > cheap, if not cheaper to get broadband than dial-up which always makes me
    > wonder what the 15% or so that are still on dial-up are doing.


    Don't have to be in the wide expanses of prairies. Many places in the US
    like here in the mid-Atlantic US where there is no broadband option
    except satellite, which at least here has proven to be both pricey and
    unreliable. It is true I guess that the US is indeed the richest
    third-world country on the planet in many ways....

    > Something I really tend to forget is to keep my page sizes down properly.
    > Not an issue so far because all the sites I've done are of local appeal, but
    > if I want to do something more international I probably need a rethink.


    Can be very frustrating to want to see a site to only to be greeted only
    with a slowly ticking loading indicator. BTW, this ones for Travis,
    another pet peeve about Flash, I love tabbed browsers and I hate the
    inability with damn Flash navigation the inability to open a link in
    another tab. Just as annoying being set at 800px wide!!!


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 22, 2008
    #14
  15. shapper

    Bergamot Guest

    SAZ wrote:
    >
    > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.


    That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
    adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Apr 22, 2008
    #15
  16. shapper

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >says...
    >> SAZ wrote:
    >> >
    >> > In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.

    >>
    >> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
    >> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
    >>
    >>

    >Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
    >600.



    So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
    conceivable screen size?
    Or write for the smallest setting alone?
    Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
    of your visitors use. You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
    100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
    bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
    PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
    and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
    richard, Apr 22, 2008
    #16
  17. richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, SAZ <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>> SAZ wrote:
    >>>> In summary, I always design with 800 x 600 in mind.
    >>> That doesn't mean it's fixed for 800px wide, does it? You meant it
    >>> adapts to that size (or larger/smaller), right?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Exactly - adapt to any size, but make sure it still looks good in 800 x
    >> 600.

    >
    >
    > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
    > conceivable screen size?


    Basically, yes. Note also you won't know what font or font size will be
    used in your site either. You may make *suggestions*, but ultimately the
    user has the final word. It not that difficult as you make think, but
    you do approach your design differently. Unfortunately noobies couple
    with the WYSIWYG crutch pixel-box themselves in.

    > Or write for the smallest setting alone?
    > Bullshit. You write the page size in accordance with what the majority
    > of your visitors use.


    Therein is the rub. You have no idea what the majority of your visitors
    viewport size it? It is not static as your your incorrectly describe as
    "page" because it is not paper. You may get my monitor's resolution (IF
    I allow you) but that may not be the viewport size at which I am view
    your site. In fact it will not be... Also you may your "box" X pixels
    wide and a up my font size and guess what happens to your layout!

    > You sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of
    > 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll
    > bar? Ya gonna write a page just for them? And now with cell phones and
    > PPC's........yeah right. Us little guys who do all the work and design
    > and don't get paid for it ain't gonna do that.
    >


    Keep your day job. Trucking is a perfect fit.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 22, 2008
    #17
  18. richard wrote:

    > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every conceivable
    > screen size?
    > Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page size
    > in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You sure as
    > hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what aboujt webtv
    > users who have no horizontal scroll bar?


    For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?

    <Blinky raises the fin with "NO" painted on it>

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #18
  19. shapper

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
    > conceivable screen size?
    > Or write for the smallest setting alone?


    Have you been around here for long?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #19
  20. SAZ wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > lid says...
    >> richard wrote:
    >>
    >> > So what are site designers to do then? Write a page for every
    >> > conceivable screen size?
    >> > Or write for the smallest setting alone? Bullshit. You write the page
    >> > size in accordance with what the majority of your visitors use. You
    >> > sure as hell don't write it to make 1 out of 100 happy. Then what
    >> > aboujt webtv users who have no horizontal scroll bar?

    >>
    >> For all: Does anybody even care about WebTV users?
    >>
    >> <Blinky raises the fin with "NO" painted on it>
    >>

    > WebTV user stats across all my sites - non-existant.


    Oh and two. They're goin' down. :)

    For some relevant fun, check my headers...


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #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. mike kim
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    515
    clintonG
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. AndrewF
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    744
    Bruce Barker
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. Tiddley-Pom
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    421
    Mark Parnell
    Oct 15, 2003
  4. mark4asp
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,126
    Steve C. Orr [MCSD, MVP, CSM, ASP Insider]
    Mar 24, 2007
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
Loading...

Share This Page