How wide?
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- OSFA
Do you know what is the standard width for a web page? I need to create a site for a client but want to avoid horizontal scrolling. What's your preferred width and height?
- ants0
800 wide is not necessarily standard but it's nice.
Go for a resolution of 1024*768 and fit within that minus the browser width
- ewirtz0
I find that 972x575 works well at 1024
- version30
990 max
- OSFA0
thanks guys, as always your input is very helpful...
- kelpie0
cater for everybody - make it 750/760 wide...
- Nairn0
As of August, I'm a 1024 kinda guy, so I'm making things at 970 or 980 (haven't quite decided how big to go).
'most' people run at least 1024 these days, unless you're targetting foreign countries, schools, shitty ends of the gov't, etc, you should be fairly safe.
Regardless, you should try to make the design work best at all resolutions - you could hang adverts on the right side, to be hidden on lo res monitors (who wants to target poor people anyway?)
Ultimately, listen to Jakob
(nnngh)
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/sc…nairn,
(an ex-standards fascist.)Oh and for any literalists out there - I don't really hold that view about poor people - I think they should all be drowned at birth or at the very least, chemically retarded in utero, to better fit society's needs)
- kelpie0
couldn't possibly agree on the dimensions of a webpage, Nairn, on that we are diametrically opposed, love your ideas on sterilising the poor though, that's my kind of thinking...
- Nairn0
that was a honeytrap, kelpie.
the Spanish anti-fascist brigade will be knocking on your door in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..
:)
Out of interest - what's your reasoning for sticking to 800?
- kelpie0
arbitrary bloody mindedness.
and bring on the spanish anarchists, they'll have a long walk and they're all talk anyway...
- Nairn0
actually, I should've prefaced my answer with "it depends on what content you're displaying"
Quite often, there may be no need to go above 800 res, and to do so may be indicative of ill-thought design.
that said, i hate seeing screen estate go to waste because some poor people refuse to upgrade their monitors.
* spits on poor
- kelpie0
in truth, we stick to 800 because it makes more sense in my mind to work your way up from your lowest common denominator than to go both up and down from a utopian midpoint [ ;) ].
plus, liquid layouts can look shit a lot of the time and clients continually turn their noses up at them.
- kelpie0
see, I like the inherent decadence of allowing half of my enormo-monitor's screen to go completely to waste, knowing the electricity involved in said could run a small african city for about a month. hahaha, fuck the poor
- moth0
couldn't possibly agree on the dimensions of a webpage, Nairn, on that we are diametrically opposed, love your ideas on sterilising the poor though, that's my kind of thinking...
kelpie
(Dec 20 06, 03:18)Couldn't agree more Gentlemen.
However, I think we should set an example of our chivalry and nobility and put the able bodied among them to work in the fields - give them a fair crack of the whip what!
We'll hang the coloreds though - curb this rise against their station before it gets out of hand.
- Witt0
i think it really depends, and you can't possibly agree in having 1 standard measure. i think it's more important to establish the widths of columns and work your way up from it. could be 860, 900-something etc.
for a common 3-column site, i think having columns below, 275 + spaces, indentes, etc is unthinkable -- so you'll end up with something between +850/900. but i also think that it is important to leave a nice blank margin on the right if the site is left-aligned.
- kelpie0
on columns, to quickly start a layout, I'll often just throw up 5 150px columns, with gutters of around 5 pixels, which leaves me with a 770px width.
but really, I'm more interested in discussing our ongoing problems with the disenfranchised masses...
- Witt0
they're taking the french out of the masses?! doesn't sound too fair.
let me check a dictionary.
- Witt0
ah. well. yes. i agree with you. kaput.
- moth0
they're taking the french out of the masses?! doesn't sound too fair.
Witt
(Dec 20 06, 03:40)Sounds brilliant!
- jamble0
what about considering a more liquid layout and a percentage width?
The 1024x768 market is now over 50% but you're still looking at nearly 20% on 800x600 so make your own mind based on target market for the site you're building. These stats may help? http://www.w3schools.com/browser…