6 ms·

Just so you know, the content of that page is frustratingly slightly too wide to display on my 1024-pixel-wide netbook screen. (Using Chromium/Chrome on Linux,

by rodw 15y ago

Just so you know, the content of that page is frustratingly slightly too wide to display on my 1024-pixel-wide netbook screen. (Using Chromium/Chrome on Linux, with Helvetica, it comes out to 1009 pixels.) This means (a) I have horizontal scroll bar added to my browser window, (b) I need to scroll a bit left/right to read some of the text, (c) it is easy to accidentally "wobble" the horizontal scroll bar when trying to scroll vertically using multi-touch gestures. If you were to shrink the width just slightly your site would be much more comfortable to read at 1024 pixels wide. As it stands I won't read the long-form letter because of the annoyances above. The bits I read sound interesting.

saturnflyer 15y ago
for you rodw, I shortened the width. It should be 970px now. It's just been one of those things: wait to get it perfect or get it done. It's probably not great on a mobile phone either but I haven't had time to tackle that.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rodw 15y ago
  I sympathize. It can be hard to cover all the browser/platform options. I'm still getting the scroll bar. There may be other reasons as well, but it looks like your header image[1] is 1016 pixels wide. I tried reloading without cache, but it is possible I'm getting an old version somehow. I'm not sure how wide the scrollbar/window chrome typically are but I think I'd allow a 20 pixel buffer at minimum (i.e. 996 width). Personally, I'd probably allow a 40+ pixel buffer just to be safe, but I in practice I just use the 960px width that 960.gs and others popularized. 64 pixels might be a little generous, but it does allow the page a little breathing room even on 1024 monitors. 1024 might be becoming a rare screen size (I don't know either way), but the vast majority of the sites I visit work at 1024 without horizontal scrolling. (A bigger problem for me is the 600px height. Even at full screen the modal popups some websites use are off-screen. I know how to scale and/or drag the window to work around that, but I'm sure most users don't.) [1] http://s3.amazonaws.com/solarhost/21/assets/57/header.png http://s3.amazonaws.com/solarhost/21/assets/57/header.png

by rodw 15y ago

saturnflyer 15y ago

for you rodw, I shortened the width. It should be 970px now. It's just been one of those things: wait to get it perfect or get it done. It's probably not great on a mobile phone either but I haven't had time to tackle that.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rodw 15y ago
I sympathize. It can be hard to cover all the browser/platform options. I'm still getting the scroll bar. There may be other reasons as well, but it looks like your header image[1] is 1016 pixels wide. I tried reloading without cache, but it is possible I'm getting an old version somehow. I'm not sure how wide the scrollbar/window chrome typically are but I think I'd allow a 20 pixel buffer at minimum (i.e. 996 width). Personally, I'd probably allow a 40+ pixel buffer just to be safe, but I in practice I just use the 960px width that 960.gs and others popularized. 64 pixels might be a little generous, but it does allow the page a little breathing room even on 1024 monitors. 1024 might be becoming a rare screen size (I don't know either way), but the vast majority of the sites I visit work at 1024 without horizontal scrolling. (A bigger problem for me is the 600px height. Even at full screen the modal popups some websites use are off-screen. I know how to scale and/or drag the window to work around that, but I'm sure most users don't.) [1] http://s3.amazonaws.com/solarhost/21/assets/57/header.png http://s3.amazonaws.com/solarhost/21/assets/57/header.png