U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Veterans Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2010, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Cary, NC
34,270 posts, read 59,588,758 times
Reputation: 33307

Advertisements

If widescreen monitors are taking over the world, is it time to expand websites beyond 800 pixels wide?

My site is 720 pixels wide, and nearing time for tweaking, or for redesign.
Can I go to 1024 pixels?
How many viewers will like it?
How many will I lose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2010, 09:20 AM
 
28,595 posts, read 40,577,263 times
Reputation: 37216
When I created mine I wrote code to adjust the width to the screen size of the user. Keep in mind this was written a long time ago and may not be what most would use now. The site still adjusts to screen with so it does work. This code adjusts the graphic for the header, which I created in multiple sizes...

var width = screen.width;
var height = screen.height;
var d = this.window.document;

//document.write("You're set to "+width+ "X" +height+"");

{if (width == 640) {
var header="'Header_trajax640.gif'";
var logo="'NewLogo640.gif'";


} else if (width == 800) {
var header="'Header_trajax800.gif'";
var logo="'NewLogo800.gif'";


} else if (width == 1024) {
var header="'Header_trajax1024.gif'";
var logo="'NewLogo1024.gif'";

} else if (width == 1152) {
var header="'Header_trajax1152.gif'";
var logo="'NewLogo1152.gif'";


} else {var header="'Header_trajax800.gif'";
var logo="'NewLogo800.gif'";


}}


d.write('<p></p>');
d.write('</div align="center">');
d.write('<center>');
d.write('<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="700">');
d.write('<tr>');
d.write('<td width="120" align="center">');
d.write('<img border="0" src=');
d.write(logo);
d.write('>');


d.write('<td width="588" align="center">');
d.write('<img border="0" src=');
d.write(header);
d.write('>');



d.write('</tr>');

d.write('</table>');
d.write('</center>');
d.write('</div>');
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
34,270 posts, read 59,588,758 times
Reputation: 33307
Thanks, Tek.

Another conversation point with my guy, to get his feedback.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:14 PM
 
3,743 posts, read 11,462,492 times
Reputation: 2754
Who is your audience? If you are looking for the minimal size standard you should know the typical viewer to your site. Personally I think 1000 is safe for width, 600 still the best bet for depth; in general 1024 has been a standard for a while now.

One way i got around variable screen size was to use tables with * widths and absolute widths, and overlap a standard fixed with image that blended into a table background - no matter the width of the screen, anything over the minimal width (say 800) would look seamless and normal while minimizing code overhead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Cary, NC
34,270 posts, read 59,588,758 times
Reputation: 33307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sayantsi View Post
Who is your audience? If you are looking for the minimal size standard you should know the typical viewer to your site. Personally I think 1000 is safe for width, 600 still the best bet for depth; in general 1024 has been a standard for a while now.
My audience is broad, from all levels of computer use and technical ability.
Most come to me on Google, etc.

So I was thinking 1024, but just wanted to get some other thoughts.
Two years ago many people were very vocal in the opinion that I had to be as narrow as possible to catch everyone.
But, I'm thinking anyone working on an 800x600 view is accustomed to doing a lot of side-scrolling.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:22 PM
 
3,743 posts, read 11,462,492 times
Reputation: 2754
Yeah, 1024x768 I think is the minimum standard these days. Most users either have high-resolution 4:3 monitors or 16:9 anymore that at least are 1024 wide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:22 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,534,952 times
Reputation: 1326
Personally, I like to zoom in on websites because the text is often so small, so even though I use a 19" widescreen most often for website viewing (1440x900 max res), and sometimes a 1280x1024 display, I prefer sites with a little less width to allow for some room to zoom. My favorite are the ones that adjust according to screen size and with word wrapping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:29 PM
 
3,743 posts, read 11,462,492 times
Reputation: 2754
Fyi, typically you can just press "cmd +" or "control +" to make the text larger, - to make it smaller. Its easier than zooming the screen since all it does it increase the font. This is also why most people stick with ~1000 px resolutions even though monitors can go higher - text gets too small to read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:33 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,534,952 times
Reputation: 1326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sayantsi View Post
Fyi, typically you can just press "cmd +" or "control +" to make the text larger, - to make it smaller. Its easier than zooming the screen since all it does it increase the font. This is also why most people stick with ~1000 px resolutions even though monitors can go higher - text gets too small to read.
True, but many websites don't deal with this very well either, YouTube for example constrains the text to a certain area, no matter how big it is. So you get the bottom half of the text line cut off or more if you zoom text only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:41 PM
 
3,743 posts, read 11,462,492 times
Reputation: 2754
If true, that is bad web design, but some of that is the behavior of the browser. Afaik Mozilla does not let that happen for example, but I have seen sites that do that before - it can render the entire site unusable when, for instance, you need to click a form button and you can't actually see it because of text size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Ā© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top