5 ms·

His Web page commonly has 128 characters per line. So, on a 17" monitor, the page is just unreadable.

by graycat 13y ago

reiichiroh 13y ago
You can't even buy 17" monitors anymore though. You can barely buy 19" monitors in 4:3 aspect ratio.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  Laptops.
  - kevinlangleyjr 13y ago
    Show me a new laptop that isn't a netbook that is lower than 1024px wide. This guy is living in '99 designing solely for 800px wide screens.
    - graycat 13y ago
      We're not being clear: The Web page 'screens' I am putting up are just 800 pixels wide. I hope that usually the user's physical screen has more pixels than 800 so that my Web pages do not take up all of the width of the user's physical screen. For my Web pages, the 800 pixels is wide enough to get the information out there for the users to read easily. For my Web site, that my Web pages are only 800 pixels wide and, thus, usually don't take up the full width of the user's physical screen helps the UI/UX. Even if the user's screen is 4096 pixels wide and three feet wide, I still only need 800 pixels of their screen! For users with tablets, phones, etc. my Web pages should still be easy to use.
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      I'm not super informed on web-design trends, but I think fixed-width designs are still pretty common. They work. Why do you think you can discount netbooks, anyway?
jwcrux 13y ago
Hi there! Sorry about the resolution issue.. I'm using Google's blogspot with settings not adjusted too much (only widened a few things, etc.) Any suggestions as to what I could do to help you read the content?
- graycat 13y ago
  Thanks for your reply. The situation is very common on the Web now. My 17" monitor is from NEC years ago, is razor sharp and rock solid, and I see no great reason to take time out to change from it. Besides, as another comment in this thread noted, laptops also have relatively small screens! So do tablets and phones! I know nothing about using Google's blogspot. For the Web site I'm building, all screens are just 800 pixels wide, and all my fonts are nice and large. So, on a big screen, could have a 'pile' of dozens of such windows each offset a little, and on a small screen could still see the full width easily without using horizontal scroll bars. How'd I do that? I'm a beginner at HTML but just stuffed in 800 px some places, and got 800 pixels. If in a browser I shrink a window to less than 800 pixels, then I get horizontal scroll bars. Broadly it's easy to assume that there it's reasonable to use lots of space vertically and let the user do a vertical scroll but try to minimize space used horizontally so that a user doesn't have to do a horizontal scroll just to read the text. In some cases, I just highlight the text, copy it to the clipboard, pull it into my favorite editor, and flow the text to, say, 60 characters a line. My view is, in reading, 40 characters per line has some advantages in eye movement in reading, 60 characters per line is plenty, 72 is almost too many, 80 is about the upper limit, and over 100 is too often a problem and, really, for easy eye movement in reading, too much. Heck, even when newspapers had sheet sizes big enough to cover a table top, they still kept way down the number of characters per line. But I can't tell the world how to design Web pages. If some people want, say, 300 characters per line and 20 characters per inch on the screen horizontally, then so be it.
  - jzwinck 13y ago
    Your web pages with fixed width of 800px may be fairly annoying to users with high-DPI displays. Mac Retina displays are perhaps the most recent and well known, but for years some people have had displays with DPI 50-200% higher than "normal", and for these people, your 800px decision looks like handcuffs. If you look back a dozen years you'll see a number of sites that instituted fixed-pixel-width layouts, then abandoned the approach as people bought more large, high-res displays. P.S.: Yes, some operating systems and browsers now zoom in a way that this doesn't matter so much, but not all, and not without downsides.

His Web page commonly has 128 characters per line. So, on a 17" monitor, the page is just unreadable.

by graycat 13y ago

His Web page commonly has 128 characters per line. So, on a 17" monitor, the page is just unreadable.

reiichiroh 13y ago

You can't even buy 17" monitors anymore though. You can barely buy 19" monitors in 4:3 aspect ratio.

nsmartt 13y ago
Laptops.
- kevinlangleyjr 13y ago
  Show me a new laptop that isn't a netbook that is lower than 1024px wide. This guy is living in '99 designing solely for 800px wide screens.
  - graycat 13y ago
    We're not being clear: The Web page 'screens' I am putting up are just 800 pixels wide. I hope that usually the user's physical screen has more pixels than 800 so that my Web pages do not take up all of the width of the user's physical screen. For my Web pages, the 800 pixels is wide enough to get the information out there for the users to read easily. For my Web site, that my Web pages are only 800 pixels wide and, thus, usually don't take up the full width of the user's physical screen helps the UI/UX. Even if the user's screen is 4096 pixels wide and three feet wide, I still only need 800 pixels of their screen! For users with tablets, phones, etc. my Web pages should still be easy to use.
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    I'm not super informed on web-design trends, but I think fixed-width designs are still pretty common. They work. Why do you think you can discount netbooks, anyway?

jwcrux 13y ago

Hi there! Sorry about the resolution issue.. I'm using Google's blogspot with settings not adjusted too much (only widened a few things, etc.) Any suggestions as to what I could do to help you read the content?

graycat 13y ago
Thanks for your reply. The situation is very common on the Web now. My 17" monitor is from NEC years ago, is razor sharp and rock solid, and I see no great reason to take time out to change from it. Besides, as another comment in this thread noted, laptops also have relatively small screens! So do tablets and phones! I know nothing about using Google's blogspot. For the Web site I'm building, all screens are just 800 pixels wide, and all my fonts are nice and large. So, on a big screen, could have a 'pile' of dozens of such windows each offset a little, and on a small screen could still see the full width easily without using horizontal scroll bars. How'd I do that? I'm a beginner at HTML but just stuffed in 800 px some places, and got 800 pixels. If in a browser I shrink a window to less than 800 pixels, then I get horizontal scroll bars. Broadly it's easy to assume that there it's reasonable to use lots of space vertically and let the user do a vertical scroll but try to minimize space used horizontally so that a user doesn't have to do a horizontal scroll just to read the text. In some cases, I just highlight the text, copy it to the clipboard, pull it into my favorite editor, and flow the text to, say, 60 characters a line. My view is, in reading, 40 characters per line has some advantages in eye movement in reading, 60 characters per line is plenty, 72 is almost too many, 80 is about the upper limit, and over 100 is too often a problem and, really, for easy eye movement in reading, too much. Heck, even when newspapers had sheet sizes big enough to cover a table top, they still kept way down the number of characters per line. But I can't tell the world how to design Web pages. If some people want, say, 300 characters per line and 20 characters per inch on the screen horizontally, then so be it.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  Your web pages with fixed width of 800px may be fairly annoying to users with high-DPI displays. Mac Retina displays are perhaps the most recent and well known, but for years some people have had displays with DPI 50-200% higher than "normal", and for these people, your 800px decision looks like handcuffs. If you look back a dozen years you'll see a number of sites that instituted fixed-pixel-width layouts, then abandoned the approach as people bought more large, high-res displays. P.S.: Yes, some operating systems and browsers now zoom in a way that this doesn't matter so much, but not all, and not without downsides.