Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Simple web site poll

Author
Message
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 08:11
Link
Hi all,

Just wanting to collect feedback about a couple of things re: web sites.

Do you prefer fixed-width or 100% width web sites? Think specifically about the ease with which you can read information from them and find what you want rather as well as the aesthetic values.

Example of a fixed width site: http://www.xbox.com.

Example of a 100% width site: http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&gl=uk

I'm wondering if we should make the main TGC site fixed width or not. From a design point of view it's actually quite a bit easier to work with. My concern is with things like source code display issues (being too wide for the allowed set of pixels). The forum will always be 100% width based, so please ignore that.

Cheers,

Rich
PS - I'll leave this as sticky until I have enough responses, thanks.

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 08:46
Link
Can I vote for 80% or 90% width as opposed to either of the above.

I personally dislike fixed-width since you don't know what resolution people will be viewing the site on. 100% width on the other hand sometimes spreads page elements too far apart to be readable.

I find that sites which always fit to a certain percentage of the screen's width (80% or so seems to work well) with a blank or plain-coloured bar on either side seems to work well.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
spooky
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 08:52
Link
Yes, I agree that all forums should be 100% width.

I design and maintain websites for a living and ALL my websites are a fixed width around 750 pixels wide, so that people running 800*600 see everything, but with monitors and resolutions getting bigger and bigger, there is an awful lot of wasted space, but the advantage is that you have complete control over design layout. Having a website at 100% width on a pc resolution of well over 1000 pixels wide makes some websites just plain stupid and you end up with huge long sentences that are hard to read and images plonked all over the place.

The main TGC website is pretty good as it in my opinion and the fixed sized columns down left and right help break up the page and the middle column's text flows nicely and is easily readable on my pc running at 1280*1024.

I can see where you are coming at in wanting to possibly redesign but I think it's as good as it can get.

I do like the fixed width layout of the FPS creator site though!

Boo!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 09:02
Link
i like fixed width of 780px on most sites.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 09:09
Link
I've been playing with layouts and while I can get the new TGC site in an 800x600 display comfortably, if I kept this size I would remove the right column and free-up a little extra space. From a graphics point of view the restriction is very helpful, but that's about where it ends.

I have been looking at other major gaming sites to see which approach they follow and the results are surprising. All of the following sites are fixed-width for 800px displays:

xbox.com
PlayStation.com
cnet.com
ubisoft.com
fileplant.com
macromedia.com

ign.com strangely uses a fixed width but for 1024x768 displays
then again - so does gamespy.com and codemasters.com, perhaps this is becoming the norm for gaming sites? All of its network sites (planetdoom etc) are 100% width but resize down to 1024px width (no lower though).

Very few major gaming sites it would appear actually use 100% width settings.

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 11:26
Link
They probably figure that most "gamers" have 17" and larger monitors so fixed width for 1024x768 is their norm.

I prefer fixed width, myself, and when I design a site I usually fix it for 800x600 just to be safe.


--[GameBasic - Coming Soon]-- ^^^ banner generously designed by TheBigBabou
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 13:24
Link
When designing sites I make them stretch above about 800, but fixed below that, keeping compatability for 800x600, but forums should be 1024 fixed width in my opinion...

You could let the user chose the resolution and change the style on that of course


Join the "C# is for programmers who are too stupid to use C++" club!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 18:07
Link
I like fixed width, in the right context. And I don't think TGC is the right context.

The majority of pages are bulging with information, and it would make my scrolling finger ache if the content became narrower and longer.

I like it as it is.

BatVink
Back to top
Profile PM Email
jasuk70
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2002
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 20:05
Link
I much prefer 100% width sites.

Jas

----
"What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not'release' software. It escapes leaving a bloody trail of developers and quality assurance people in its wake!"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Foxy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jan 2005
Location: The Dale, South Australia
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 20:58
Link
I like 90% width or so. I designed my site with tables that are at 65% (?) width, mainly because my site has just about all text and it looks messy if spread out too far.

With TGC, you've got graphic elements, so I vote for 90% width.

Gaming resources.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Mattman
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jun 2003
Location: East Lansing
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 21:49
Link
100% I say

Instituting name change, prepare for the new Mattman!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jess T
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Sep 2003
Location: Over There... Kablam!
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 22:44
Link
Definatly not 100% width IMO.
I think it looks REALLY tacky when there ISN'T a blank space around the edges, even if it's only minute ( as is the case with the TGC site ).

set a min-width for 750px and a width for 95% or somesuch, I would say that would make it nice and well-displayed all-round


Team EOD :: Programmer/All-Round Nice Guy
Aust. Convention!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hawkeye
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2003
Location: SC, USA
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 23:08
Link
I really really really really prefer %100 to fixed width, but actually I think I'm going for what Jess just said in this case

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 13th Apr 2005 23:53
Link
Personally I can't stand fixed width at all; 100% looks by far better. I've never understood why anyone would not want all of their screen space used in the ideal manner


Click here if you want to live
--Mouse
Back to top
Profile PM
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 02:20
Link
100% width,m but perhaps with some sort of gutter around hte edge of the site (as it is now).

Facts are meaningless.
You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
mm0zct
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Nov 2003
Location: scotland-uk
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 08:38
Link
i like it as it is, 100% including a thin border (about 90ish% then) so i can stretch out the window horizontally reducing the vertiacl length i have to scroll but also i can make the window small if i need screen space. i don't like fixed size because it means i can't take advantage of the 1280x1024 resolution i have my screen at and it usually means i can't make the window small to save space.

http://www.larinar.tk
AMD athlon 64 3000+, 512mb ddr400, abit kv8, 160gb hdd, gigabit lan, ati radeon 9800se 128mb.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 12:44
Link
i always design my sites with either a percentage (not necessarily 100%) or to display properly at a minimum of 800x600, but really only if it looks classy at huge displays like 1600x1200..

Really doesnt matter either way..


Yarr join teh New and Improved LoGD!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
just ND
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2005
Location: London
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 18:07
Link
I aggree with the people that say that you should have the site on a high percentage but leave a border round the edge. Good work Rich!

<- Please refrain from touching the stuffed dinosoar; despite appearances it is not actually dead.

formerly ND the king of um iduno
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 21:31
Link
Depends on the website and overall design.
I feel the current website design makes the site look tacky.

This isn't just because of the current design that feels cluttered (even at my 1600x1200 resolution), but because of the way everything is being put across.

For example there are 2 menu systems, this makes the design feel undecisive.

While there are no real adverts, there are a number of in-house adverts spanning the website. It is good to make sure users always are informed, the way in which it is presented really is the key issue.

Often I've found in my hours on the net, that the best designs seems to show a slightly minimalist fixed width approach for end-users, but when it comes to developer sections that require more information the 100% scheme is used.

Good examples of this are:

Microsoft Homesite
Microsoft Developer Network

and

nVidia Homesite
nVidia Developer Site

A common factor many websites have that provide a service is making sure that while you have a few major announcements in a fashion that the users can see it, you always keep additional announcements or new in the background.

The flow of the site needs to make sure you control the attention of the user. This is where the current website fails pretty badly, it isn't idiot-proof (as our many MSN Conversations have proven) and the focus is always all over the place. Providing too much information too quickly.

Remember that most people viewing the site will have a variety of resolutions. Fixed width caters for everyone, while it'll annoy a number of developers, that is a small price to pay for the masses being able to enjoy the site correctly.

In all honesty I really like the approach being used nowadays by a lot of companies. Where you have generic information in a fixed width, then you'll have a Flash animation that moves between all of the new information.

The Microsoft sites in particular, have quite good designs. They flow, and despite the huge amount of information it needs to convey, each area cuts all the information down in to bite-size forms.

Just my thoughts on it really.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 22:00
Link
Quote: "I have been looking at other major gaming sites to see which approach they follow and the results are surprising. All of the following sites are fixed-width for 800px displays:

xbox.com
PlayStation.com
cnet.com
ubisoft.com
fileplant.com
macromedia.com"


I took a quick look at some of those sites, and I don't think they are suitable places to look for examples of 'good' gaming websites. I would go as far as saying that the TGC website in its current state is more useable than some of them.

Quote: "The Microsoft sites in particular, have quite good designs. They flow, and despite the huge amount of information it needs to convey, each area cuts all the information down in to bite-size forms.
"


My experience is somewhat different. The search facility on MSDN is awful. Usually whenever I wish to find something on MSDN I end up searching Google instead. Considering the huge volume of information on MSDN, a good search is the only realistic option.

Do a search for "MSDN create window" on Google and "create window" on the MSDN website and you can see for yourself.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 22:14
Link
Quote: "My experience is somewhat different. The search facility on MSDN is awful. Usually whenever I wish to find something on MSDN I end up searching Google instead. Considering the huge volume of information on MSDN, a good search is the only realistic option."


But that's only the search facility and not to do with the design, but the background coding of the site. TheGameCreators.com has no search facility to speak of. As such didn't think that would be an issue that would need to be conveyed.

Quote: "Do a search for "MSDN create window" on Google and "create window" on the MSDN website and you can see for yourself"


The Google search only returns CreateWindow in the MSDN Library for the Windows API.

Microsoft have numerous other variations of the CreateWindow function over several APIs and languages. Each of whom use them differently. The MSDN Search feature brings up the most concurrent (in this case the Windows::CreateWindow) as this is what would be use more majoritively in business application development.

This said did you try 'C++ Create Window' you'll get a more favourable result.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 22:16
Link
Quote: "I feel the current website design makes the site look tacky."


Give an example of a product site that isn't "tacky". Microsoft doesn't count - I need a site that specifically tries to sell multiple similar products.

Quote: "For example there are 2 menu systems, this makes the design feel undecisive."


This is common practise. Even your beloved MS uses this approach Top level nav for overall products, second level nav for product specific options. I'm happy to look at alternatives, but I need examples.

Quote: "Remember that most people viewing the site will have a variety of resolutions. Fixed width caters for everyone, while it'll annoy a number of developers, that is a small price to pay for the masses being able to enjoy the site correctly."


We'll have to agree to disagree here - it's not fixed width that makes a site cater for everyone, it's the ability to fit into an 800x600 resolution (and even then you'll exclude a tiny amount of people). Supporting 800x600 (which even MS don't do, they're 1024x768) can be done regardless of 100% width or fixed width - the real question I was asking was: which do people prefer the look of? because *designing* for a fixed width is far easier.

Cheers,

Rich

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Apr 2005 23:43
Link
http://www.discreet.com
http://www.alias.com

Microsoft use 2 menu systems, but unlike the TGC one it forms a single menu system.

Top = Sections
Side = Local

Even still, the say it is done on the Microsoft site.. it feels like a single menu that is curved around the top-left.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 15th Apr 2005 00:14
Link
The discreet site is just far too dull, especially for such an awesome range of products, to be of any interest to the majority of people who visit our site. Same goes for the MS site to be honest, too many square pastel shaded boxes and lines until you get to the gaming parts of it. Think about who makes up the vast majority of our customer base, they're not the sort of people who hang out on MSDN for laughs, they hang out on X-Box Live. It's a different approach we need to take - there's nothing stopping different layouts as the section requires it (DarkSDK vs. T3DGM for example).

The Alias site however, now that's good - very well done indeed and a design I like very much. Their menu structure can get very long and overwhelming (not even fitting above the scroll on a high-res display) but at least it doesn't do it until you start digging deeper into the product pages. They're very heavy into the use of PDFs too rather than actually having the information on the site :-\

You're right about the Flash things showing the latest news and it's something we've incorporated already, it's a sensible and nicely visual method.

I'd still like more examples of killer looking / laid out sites though (from anyone reading this.. not just Raven).

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 15th Apr 2005 00:36 Edited at: 15th Apr 2005 00:37
Link
The Alias site looks fantastic...until you start to drill down. The product pages are "messy" if you ask me...
http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/sketchbook_pro/index.shtml
I went through 3 pages to get there, and every one of them had a different look and feel, with the breadcrumb appearing/disappearing, left hand nav bar creating too much white space below it, then disappearing again.

I have to say, I disagree with Raven on all fronts, despite the in-depth analysis. For a site with many angles, "in-house advertising" is essential, and should be plentiful. If I have a product I want to shift, I advertise it in the margins. It sells, point made. I have many off-centre AdSense ads that are quite nicely paying for my hosting and a bit more on top. You can't second-guess your customer, so make sure they are well informed.

I avoid M$ websites like the plague. The consumer sites are flooded with ads. The developer sites are too difficult to navigate, and the search results are quite frankly pants.

Any overhaul will give TGC a fresh feel, which is always nice, but I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with it.

BatVink
Back to top
Profile PM Email
JerBil
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th May 2004
Location: Somewhere along the Z axis...
Posted: 15th Apr 2005 10:26
Link
A vote for 100%. The Google News site is impressive, and TGC should look as good.


-JerBil

Ad Astra Per Asper
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 02:30
Link
i preffer full width, but thats cos i've got a higher than average screen res, and a lot of websites are designed for 800*600 and dont even allign them centrally so the site only takes the left 50%.

however, im sure you realise you can have set width to be as a percentage, like instead of fixing to be a certain ammount of pixels , set to be a certain percentage of the screen...
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 03:17
Link
For the basic webpage and delivery of product info and such, fixed-width is fine with me. But for web forums, I very much prefer 100%.

PETA - People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
eat much pie
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Apr 2004
Location: Within the mind of a lowly mortal...
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 07:53 Edited at: 16th Apr 2005 07:53
Link
Hows about having something in each person's profile options that lets them choose if they want fixed width (and what width), or variable width (and what percentage is wanted). It seems that this is very controversial, so perhaps giving the option would solve the problem nicely.

Although, I don't know if it would be possible to do this.

My AI Routing Program
Sam Wright
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 08:35 Edited at: 16th Apr 2005 08:35
Link
Quote: "I'd still like more examples of killer looking / laid out sites though (from anyone reading this.. not just Raven)."


I'm more of a sucker for minimilist CSS designs, so this probably won't be applicable to TGC but I do like http://www.mezzoblue.com, especially the right grey nav bar with the white rounded boxes. But that's just me.

Okay, what I'm about to say next may be regarded as herecy.

The TGC site is confusing. For me, I something having trouble finding what I need. It's undoubtedly very large, and the main page is stuffed with text. The side nav bar shows some of what's on the top nav bar, and the top nav bar has a list of programs along with some web site links at the end. And then the list of programs is listed below the vertical nav bar also.

There's also loads of link panels on the left and right, and for me it's just a tad confusing

Again this is just me, but I think it'd rock if there was a simple horizontal nav bar at the top, with links like Development, Media, Games, Community, Support etc. which lead to overviews of each area with a sub-horizontal menu appearing below with more topic within that section. ATM it's a bit of an information overload!

Again, that's just what I think. Everybody else may love the site

Facts are meaningless.
You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 20:13
Link
Based on this and other feedback we're going to go with a fixed-width (800x600 centered) display for the core product sites and expand out to 100% for sections that require it. Visually the site is going to change quite a lot and we'll be removing various "confusing" elements from it such as the right-hand panel, etc which frees up space for the content (so scrolling will be kept to a minimum).

It will also be handling multiple languages including very extended character sets (Chinese, etc) which, believe me, is quite a challenge from a code point of view.

I'll unstick this thread now but leave it open for discussion.

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 20:58 Edited at: 16th Apr 2005 20:59
Link
Fixed width... yuk. They always look pretty stupid on my 1600x1200 screen. Just make sure there is some decent graphics around it, otherwise it just looks stupid. Much like that X-Box example you linked to. And then theres the 1920x1200 laptop, which starts to look like a small blob on the screen. Which is always laughable when a text box has a scroll bar on it. But I have like 4 times the space!!!! No!!!! That's my point. Plus you will have to redesign the size of it all when most the standard res size goes up.

So, big double thumbs down from me.

Cheers

Ps. Thank god you are keeping the forum 100%. When I rotate my main monitor to 1200x1600 resolution, it is well cool for forums. Love that.

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
EddieB
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Sep 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Apr 2005 21:02
Link
I like 100% Becuase I use alot of computers with a range of screen resaloutions and on one of my pc's it has an old moniter, And the TGC website looks very mangled on it and I have to scrole the hole page width 2 times to view it.

Many Thanks
Eddie

[href]http:www.graphics-monkey.co.uk[href]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 17th Apr 2005 10:29
Link
Quote: "Which is always laughable when a text box has a scroll bar on it. But I have like 4 times the space!!!! No!!!!"


Pick up a newspaper, book, magazine, etc - infact anything you read from and look at the width of the text columns. Do you see "100% width" columns in The Times? (incase you don't read it, the answers "no" - they design based on what is easy for the eye to follow)

Anyway this is a religious debate (i.e. there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do it) - if the vast majority had said "keep it 100%" then I'd have re-considered, but quite to my surprise they didn't, so the landing pages and core information pages will expand and contract accordingly. David's right, there is far too much going on, mostly to try and fill the gap that 100% widths leave behind. Time to trim it down massively and split things up. We'll see how the 800px mock-ups go and move to 1024px if required.

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 17th Apr 2005 10:41
Link
Fair enough. I'm just telling you what it looks like at high res. That X-Box site looks like my PDA almost. Even some nice background graphics would have been better than a sea of blank. Yuk.

Check out attachment for 1920x1200 example.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 17th Apr 2005 10:54
Link
Quote: "Fair enough. I'm just telling you what it looks like at high res. That X-Box site looks like my PDA almost. Even some nice background graphics would have been better than a sea of blank. Yuk."


This is why everyone has to pick a "target market" you will never be able to satisfy everyone. In this case, xbox made their site for the majority small resolution which is 800px.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 18th Apr 2005 02:38
Link
Yeah, ok, but at least fill the edges with some decent graphics, such as the X-Box logo. Did you see my attachment? Was like a desert on each side. Surely though the average has got to be 1024 by now though. 800x600 was pretty poor when we first got Win95. Suppose it's acceptable compared to the actual console (assuming you aren't running true hi-def), but still....

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 21st Apr 2005 01:03
Link
The edges will be filled - and besides it's mostly going to be the landing pages that are fixed width - as soon as you hit a level deeper or so it'll expand out anyway.

Quote: "Surely though the average has got to be 1024 by now though"


Yes, it is and I want to cater to this - but it's not by as large a margin as you'd think unfortunately:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

29% still on 800x600. Bizarre isn't it? Mind you the stats for our site would be different in that we attract more high-tech users, so I reckon the 29% would be lower, but that's still a heck of a lot of people isn't it? The other thing of course is that at a 1024 res a fixed width site of 800px doesn't look half bad at all and would fill a good portion of the browser! The web sucks sometimes

Two Worlds and in Between
Hot Metal and Methedrine
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 21st Apr 2005 06:28
Link
Fair enough, but it's pretty rare that I see a "tiny" site these days. Although Google for some reason seems to fit quite well into a sort of teeny tiny cute look.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 07:51:51
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 07:51:51