Comments on: Web Sites and Window Width http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/ Interface Design & UX by Joshua Porter Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:28:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Almond http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1539 Michael Almond Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:00:56 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1539 It seems to me that that advantage of a large monitor or a higher resolution setting is mostly in the area of the OS, software applications and some Web applications. You need the real estate because of pallets, tool bars, etc. etc. I web page, on the other hand rarely looks as good or is as usable at larger sizes. Web designers are not designing for themselves, they are designing for visitors, most of whom (myself included) can't stand a cluttered, huge page horizontally. People will scroll, that's clear enough, but vertically. I have yet to see a Blog that isn't endlessly long and interesting enough, not one I have seen has a return to top link. This is usability 101...why not add one? Just a thought. It seems to me that that advantage of a large monitor or a higher resolution setting is mostly in the area of the OS, software applications and some Web applications. You need the real estate because of pallets, tool bars, etc. etc.

I web page, on the other hand rarely looks as good or is as usable at larger sizes. Web designers are not designing for themselves, they are designing for visitors, most of whom (myself included) can’t stand a cluttered, huge page horizontally. People will scroll, that’s clear enough, but vertically. I have yet to see a Blog that isn’t endlessly long and interesting enough, not one I have seen has a return to top link. This is usability 101…why not add one? Just a thought.

]]> By: Bob Easton http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1435 Bob Easton Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:20:35 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1435 My display is still physically small, but capable of 1400x1050. I have never used full screen windows, even when resolution was much lower. I always use window sizes somewhat smaller, usually around 900. I once subscribed to "everything should be fluid," but have changed my mind after having seen fluid sites look terrible on very high resolution displays (>2048). So, I've come to think that a good solution would be a flexible design with min-width:800px and a max-width:990 (to allow an easy fit in displays that are only 1024 wide). Of course, that means hacking for IE since it doesn't support min/max. My display is still physically small, but capable of 1400×1050. I have never used full screen windows, even when resolution was much lower. I always use window sizes somewhat smaller, usually around 900.

I once subscribed to “everything should be fluid,” but have changed my mind after having seen fluid sites look terrible on very high resolution displays (>2048).

So, I’ve come to think that a good solution would be a flexible design with min-width:800px and a max-width:990 (to allow an easy fit in displays that are only 1024 wide). Of course, that means hacking for IE since it doesn’t support min/max.

]]> By: CM Harrington http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1432 CM Harrington Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:37:03 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/web-sites-and-window-width/#comment-1432 I totally agree. I am lucky enough to have the Apple 23" display, and possibly the worst thing in the world is when I unknowingly go to a Flash site that decides that it needs to be 100% by 100%. What a mess! Also, 1024px wide is a bit much even for those with 1024px wide monitors. For example, I have my dock on the right, not the bottom, so I get a horizontal scroll bar on by 12" powerbook screen. Apple's OS (throughout its history) has always been about being able to see multiple windows, and to at least some extent, promote multi-tasking. Compare this to the Windows OS approach which promotes single-tasking through the use of the "maximise" button, making the active window take over the whole screen. The idea of single-screen/single tasking isn't bad in-and-of-itself, although the idea was conceived in a time where screen resolution was much smaller than it is today. The mere thought of a Word document taking up the entirety of my 23" monitor is insane. Of course, it may be a necessity soon, if MS keeps adding stuff to their toolbars ;-) I totally agree. I am lucky enough to have the Apple 23″ display, and possibly the worst thing in the world is when I unknowingly go to a Flash site that decides that it needs to be 100% by 100%. What a mess!

Also, 1024px wide is a bit much even for those with 1024px wide monitors. For example, I have my dock on the right, not the bottom, so I get a horizontal scroll bar on by 12″ powerbook screen. Apple’s OS (throughout its history) has always been about being able to see multiple windows, and to at least some extent, promote multi-tasking. Compare this to the Windows OS approach which promotes single-tasking through the use of the “maximise” button, making the active window take over the whole screen.

The idea of single-screen/single tasking isn’t bad in-and-of-itself, although the idea was conceived in a time where screen resolution was much smaller than it is today. The mere thought of a Word document taking up the entirety of my 23″ monitor is insane. Of course, it may be a necessity soon, if MS keeps adding stuff to their toolbars ;-)

]]>