4 ms·
We've been using maximum of 1140px col-xl width since 1920x1080 was considered the bleeding edge, but now monitors with 2560x1440 resolution are becoming more c
by justrossthings 10y ago
We've been using maximum of 1140px col-xl width since 1920x1080 was considered the bleeding edge, but now monitors with 2560x1440 resolution are becoming more common- where 1140 barely covers half the width of the screen.
Isn't about time we had a grid container that fixed this?
- treve 10y agoStop using grids and use flexbox instead!
- brianwawok 10y agoWhat is the average resolution of a phone held vert?
- wongarsu 10y agoAverage of all phones is likely pretty bad, considering quality and quantity of cheap chinese phones. The average of your visitors is probably much better, but still a meaningless number. More interesting: the Galaxy S7 has a 2560x1440 display. Same for the HTC 10 and the LG V10. The iPhone 6 Plus has a 1920×1080 display, with the iPhone 7 about to be revealed.
- angry-hacker 10y agoBut these phones are not that wide when it comes to CSS pixels. This is just resolution. I believe latest iPhone is 414px.
- rangibaby 10y agoA page that wide doesn't sound very practical unless you want lots and lots of columns. I was taught that an average 10 words per line is best for reading.
- WorldMaker 10y agoLots of columns can be great. Newspapers have been doing that for centuries.
- rangibaby 10y agoI've been trying to reconcile print design principles with screen, and the main difference is that on a screen you have unlimited vertical space. A newspaper layout doesn't really make sense - do I go to the next column, or scroll down? I think there are ways to guide the readers eye to where you want it to go with color or in other ways, but it's an interesting design problem.
- WorldMaker 10y agoI admit I'm one of the few that very much liked the Windows 8 design language approach of readable columns scrolling off infinitely horizontally. I thought that was a good design path. Screens don't have to scroll vertically.