Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001
From: Andy Dingley on 26 Jan 2010 10:27
On 26 Jan, 10:59, Steve Swift <steve.j.sw...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> It's entirely reasonable to restrict the width of your pages;

What's a "page" ?

If you mean "browser window", then you can't control this without
being intensely irritating to the user.

If you do set the browser window, it's normally set in pixel units,
which is a bad idea as it ignores the user's font settings.

If by "page" you mean "block of content", then there are some good
ergonomic reasons for restricting its maximum width (text lines more
than 15 words become hard to read). However, even within these, there
are things to remember:

This restricted dimension must be set in ems (i.e. text size based
units), not pixels.

This is a limitation on a single block of content, not an overall page
or window width. With a fluid design, you might have other elements
that move between being alongside or above each other, depending on
proportions.


From: Roy A. on 26 Jan 2010 19:04
On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> Mason C wrote:
> > What screen size should one design for?

The consensus in this group is not to design (for any resolution).
Meaning, you should not design, but let the content flow, and adapt to
the browser window.

> If you are designing fixed width, then a bit less than 1024, perhaps
> 990.

I agree. But I think you should give a little bit more room to the
scrollbars. I haven't tested this, but you might be right.

I also think you should include css for hand held browsers. It is
easy, just remove floating, positioning and adjust margins and
paddings. And make sure your content is ordered by importance, and in
a way that is useful for people that have to listen to your content.
(One tip: The input-element have an alt-attribute, us it).

> That's where most sites are and most people (not including those in
> this group) are comfortable with that. That number has stepped up over
> the years, but I don't see it going up again.

I disagree. People and companies are moving from desktops to laptops.
All laptops have a resoluting from 1280 (width). But today, about 20%
is using an resoluting about 1024. So I would agree with you, after
all.

>    If you can, design fluid width.

Design fluid if you can. I agree! Most sites have an predictable
audience, but you can't know how these people are browsing your site.

Browsers tend to adapt. I will say that browsers up to 800px is
handheld devices, and should have a different stylesheet.

> But to do fluid width design you
> either need to be a genius or have simple content. Not that there aren't
> geniuses or that there aren't sites with simple content.

Fluid design is possible, but they will not be as attractive as fixed
with designs.

>    At any rate the trend among browsers is to adapt. Look at the iPhone.
> I *think* page zoom falls in there.

It is just not iPhone who is flexible in this way. I think Opera
(mobile browser) was first. What you are describing has existed, at
least in Europe, for a long time.

From: Roy A. on 26 Jan 2010 19:14
On 26 Jan, 20:32, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
<joh...(a)myrkraverk.com> wrote:
> Gregor Kofler <use...(a)gregorkofler.com> writes:
> > Mason C meinte:
>
> >> What screen size should one design for?
>
> > None.
>
> Just set the width to 200%, with enough text everyone has to sidescroll.
>
> My point: I *hate* to have my browser window full size, but I have to
> because everyone and his dog develop sites that expect a certain width.

You can complain, if that make you feel better!

> On my 1280px wide laptop, I'd like to have my browser at half width,
> or 640px

You can. Is there not a ad-on that convert inputs and display it like
it would be on an handheld?

>.  But since *no-one* has such small screens anymore, that
> isn't an option on most (all?) sites.

I have, and many others have screens that small. It is not a problem
for either of us, because we all can zoom the content, or display it
as it would be on an handheld.

>
> I'll echo: None

You're welcome!
From: dorayme on 26 Jan 2010 19:41
In article
<eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a341(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
m>,
"Roy A." <royarneskar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > Mason C wrote:
> > > What screen size should one design for?
>
> The consensus in this group is not to design (for any resolution).
> Meaning, you should not design, but let the content flow, and adapt to
> the browser window.
>

These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
with a grain of salt.

....
>
> I disagree. ... So I would agree with you, after
> all.
>

An interesting paragraph, maybe a first in which there is a
complete change in mind over such a short distance! <g>

--
dorayme
From: Roy A. on 26 Jan 2010 20:19
On 27 Jan, 01:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a...(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
> m>,
>  "Roy A." <royarnes...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > Mason C wrote:
> > > > What screen size should one design for?
>
> > The consensus in this group is not to design (for any resolution).
> > Meaning, you should not design, but let the content flow, and adapt to
> > the browser window.
>
> These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
> are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
> with a grain of salt.

Yes, I agree. If I can say so, there is something those who is arguing
for "flexible with" is not saying.

At least I think you have to apply an max-with for the main content.

> > I disagree. ...  So I would agree with you, after
> > all.

That is correct. A bad wording, but you know what I am agreeing with
if you read it. But some might forget it, I will consider that.

> An interesting paragraph, maybe a first in which there is a
> complete change in mind over such a short distance! <g>

Not complete. I agree with one point, and disagree with on other
point, I didn't take in account if the speaker was pro something, and
I should disagree to all, or if the speaker was the opposite and I
should agree to all.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001