Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
cameronmoll.com
Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#2Is it time to design for 42" lcd tvs and desktop monitors and netbook screens and mobile phones?
I guess we have to keep waiting for http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#media1 support.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#3I remember being amused in 1996, that some newbie web developers were writing their html to work best with a specific number of pixels of width... I don't find it so funny these days.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#4What is the point of limiting website width to specific pixels, especially why go over so much thought for something from 960 -> 1020 or something small like that? You'd think with the netbook and mobile browser shrinking that the designers would stick to their guns.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#5I had a rant all prepared but decided against it.
A fixed width page that has been well designed for 1024x768 (such as this article) is frustrating to read on my 1600x1200 LCD, and would be even worse on a 1900x1200 LCD.
Maybe an extension to CSS that permits specifying "Widescreen" or "Netbook" as alternatives to "screen" and "print" or whatever would be helpful. I'd sure like an option that says "I'm not blind and I'd like to use the pixels I've paid for."
Maybe since Javascript is ok again designers could design two or three widths and have browser page detection select the smartest layout. Having a 1024x{600,768} design for netbooks and grandma would and a 1400+ column design for people using large screens and professional grade notebooks.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#6Ugh, no. This penalizes people with larger screens.
1920x1200 = two windows of 960px
2560x1600 = three windows of ~850px
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#7What is the point of limiting website width to specific pixels, especially why go over so much thought for something from 960 -> 1020 or something small like that? You'd think with the netbook and mobile browser shrinking that the designers would stick to their guns.
960->1020 isn't necessarily that small depending on what the space is used for.
If it's just making a content column wider then it's not really that useful in most cases, but if it's adding another column with useful information for the user, then it is a big deal - it makes the website that much easier to use.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#8I have a crazy 15" Omnibook laptop with 1400x1050 (!) resolution on it. I still design my Windows app dialogs to be no more than 600x400.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#9Ugh, no. This penalizes people with larger screens. 1920x1200 = two windows of 960px 2560x1600 = three windows of ~850px
absolutely! I remember once when my monitor resolution reached 1280x1024 and beyond (especially now on wide screens), I quit browsing with a maximized browser. Even if the browser was maximized and page was full of content, border to border, it would be hell to read/use. Imagine old newpaper format of gargantuan A1 size, it sucks.
Re: Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels?
#10Despite my laptop's display having 1440 horizontal pixels, I usually keep my web browser window around 900 pixels wide. I'd like it to be even narrower than that, but too many designers seem to assume it's a full 1024 and make their sites around 960 pixels wide. :)
I do this for two reasons. One is that the remaining space on my screen is for other stuff. The other is that a lot of websites ignore the traditional typographic rules for line length, and even when those rules are followed, the principle of constraining the horizontal size (including things like navigation and sidebars) in order to reduce the necessary eye movement still applies.