
Is it time to move beyond 960 pixels? - qeek
http://cameronmoll.com/archives/2009/04/is_it_time_to_move_beyond_960/
======
iigs
I 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.

------
tesseract
Despite 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.

~~~
pasbesoin
I use Firefox with the Web Developer extension. In the latter, I have a few
different Window sizes pre-defined. Changing to the desired Window size in
only a drop and click away.

------
buugs
What 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.

~~~
bkbleikamp
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.

~~~
buugs
Here is something 80 px wide
[http://www.novavision.com/clinic_images/Neurol%20Inst%20Colu...](http://www.novavision.com/clinic_images/Neurol%20Inst%20Columbia%20web%20logo%2080px%20wide.gif)

to give you an idea of what kind of value can be added

Sure adding another column could be useful but as you can see by the authors
tone he is talking about flow and divisions of columns and how those go well
together and in all reality it sure doesn't make a hell of a difference even
if you shrink something to add an extra column. After a while you get
cluttered and usability/simplicity goes out the window.

------
wmf
Ugh, no. This penalizes people with larger screens.

1920x1200 = two windows of 960px

2560x1600 = three windows of ~850px

~~~
sachmanb
everything sounded good about moving past 960 until i saw your comment and
synthesized it with the knowledge that i do this very frequently.

the other problem with this and fluid designs on wide screens is that it
becomes difficult to read text when it is that wide.

the best idea that i have seen is a site (or maybe it was sites, i know I've
seen at least one), where the content is 960px but then if your browser window
is wider, javascript adds additional content to the right of the content,
columns that come down with additional links and further navigation options.

------
abstractbill
I 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.

~~~
scorxn
The basic problem is that traditional designers are still trained to think in
terms of canvases or formats, which have a fixed width and height. Moving
beyond a fixed height is a cognitive hurdle. Moving beyond a fixed width is
only more so, especially when bitmaps are involved.

------
noss
Is 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.

------
DanielStraight
What we really need is a way for users to apply their own width limits and
have all designs be fluid.

In fact, I wonder why this isn't a common option in browsers.

What if your text editor didn't let you resize the window because it thought
80 characters was wide enough for anyone (80 characters at 10pt Courier, of
course)? I would be pretty mad. Users should be in control of these sort of
things.

------
alexk7
Let's just let the web designers continue to use 960 and implement browsers
with full page zoom that considers 1024 pixels as a relative page width for
the whole window, no matter its true width. I think that's what iPhone Safari
already does.

To accomodate people with bigger windows, link to bigger images so that they
scale as beautifully as text.

------
zandorg
I have a crazy 15" Omnibook laptop with 1400x1050 (!) resolution on it. I
still design my Windows app dialogs to be no more than 600x400.

