Comments on: Browser Width: A Response

By: Jason Dunn

Jason Dunn — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:27:39 +0000

…design a site so that it can be viewed at 1024×768, filling part of the screen on a hi res monitor, or full screen on a hi res monitor, for users such as me

And that’s the classic question: do I allow my site design to be warped into a wide, unreadable mess? Or do I fix the width to a reasonable compromise and lock in the design? Or do I provide a CSS switch to allow people to do what they want? There’s no right or wrong answer IMO. I have sites that are fixed width, and sites that are variable.

Also with regards to the above, I’d be really surprised if ‘multiple windows on the display at once’ was as common a usage scenario as you think?

A great question – based on how I work, and how I’ve seen other people work, the higher the resolution, the higher the chance of people using smaller, multiple windows. I wish log file software could track THIS.

By: PaulAtMoDaCo

PaulAtMoDaCo — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:52:29 +0000

Edit: Just tried Sizer again and it IS working on Vista now (after installing as an admin).

Worth checking out: http://www.brianapps.net/sizer.html

By: PaulAtMoDaCo

PaulAtMoDaCo — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:48:14 +0000

Filip:

“And if Paul is reading this, umm… trying to read this with no filled screen effect, then he should really try another web browser!”

How do u mean?

By: PaulAtMoDaCo

PaulAtMoDaCo — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:47:22 +0000

First things first… my blog (PaulOBrien.net) was whipped up quick smart using the standard Drupal skin, so I make no apologies for how it currently looks. I should verify posted pictures look right in 1024×768 res (which is the width I deem as minimum supported), however I guess i’ve got lazy since I switched to Vista and discovered the excellent ‘Sizer’ (http://www.brianapps.net/sizer.html) didn’t work.

With regards to MoDaCo, it (should) display correctly on 1024×768 and on wide screens – as far as I am aware – so that users effectively have the choice… so that’s my point basically…

…design a site so that it can be viewed at 1024×768, filling part of the screen on a hi res monitor, or full screen on a hi res monitor, for users such as me

Also with regards to the above, I’d be really surprised if ‘multiple windows on the display at once’ was as common a usage scenario as you think?

By: Jason Dunn

Jason Dunn — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:23:51 +0000

“Don’t we embed ads in the full-content feeds?”

We do, but there aren’t enough RSS ads coming from Feedburner to put one in every feed, so not every piece of content is monetized. Also, a single RSS ad can’t equal the ads on the rest of the site.

By: Janak Parekh

Janak Parekh — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:57:59 +0000

“As a professional with a news site that has ads, that comment makes me weep. ”

Don’t we embed ads in the full-content feeds?

By: Jason Dunn

Jason Dunn — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:36:11 +0000

I should point out that I’m well aware of the irony of a post about readability from a guy who has a blog with white text on a red background that isn’t super easy to read.

By: Filip Norrgård

Filip Norrgård — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:02:16 +0000

Heh, I think my blog/site must also look ugly on higher resolutions, although I fine-tuned it to my 15 inch screen on a 1680 x 1050 resolution. I’ve tried making the site a bit more readable, and I guess the measure of readability is YMMV.

The Modaco site doesn’t look that nice in the screenshot you took, and fixed widths might be better/worse depending on which browser you use. In this case, some extra column of ads, or relevant content, would fit just fine. The main problem is probably that it can be tricky (?) to implement.

There are certain sites that offer the possibility of chaning the CSS by clicking a button, and that should be the place to leave an option for anyone running ultra-high resolutions. The option I tend to use with width flowing sites is zooming in using the browser and turn on “fit to width”. (The bonus is that reading is a lot more easier on the eyes) Here’s a screenshot of how I like to zoom in.

And if Paul is reading this, umm… trying to read this with no filled screen effect, then he should really try another web browser!

By: Jason Dunn

Jason Dunn — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:42:43 +0000

Yeah, the 1024 limit is where I think a fair “middle ground” resolution is for Web sites. Our template for Zune Thoughts is 1000 pixels wide (give or take) and I always chuckle when I come across Web sites that are designed for 1200+ pixels in width.

By: oilman

oilman — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:32:25 +0000

It’s quite interesting to see your stats showing that much high resolution readership but I guess it’s really tied to your audience. You run technology enthusiast sites so it’s not suprising to see 12% above 1600. I am privy to the stats of a several top etailer sites and I can assure you that the general public by and large is still hugely in favor of 800×600 and 1024×768 and just barely edging into larger displays.

I also agree that too wide is too hard to read. The eye doesn’t track back to the next line easily when you’re having to scan back over the width of a 24″ widescreen. I use dual 20″ widescreens here and I rarely run anything maximized to that resolution.