On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Felix Miata <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012/01/24 19:15 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed: > >> I don't know about the original poster's target demographic, but 960px >> works well on a modern computer or a modern mobile device.... > > Debatable...
I guess some of this stuff is a matter of opinion. In each of the screenshots, you're saying that the site could make better use of the horizontal space available, right? In my humble opinion, those sites make effective use of horizontal space and presentation of their content. When more fits on the screen than just the web site it's a good thing. I'd make the browser window only big enough to show the site, then use the rest of the space for other windows. But that's just me. Consider also the general rule that content shouldn't exceed some horizontal width. It often applies to coding practices and communications mediums... even some mailing lists. How wide it should be is a matter of opinion, and I think that's the original question... What do we, as a community, think is a good width. >> I don't know about the current generation of netbooks, but I expect >> resolutions to go up. > >> High resolution users can see and use a 960px wide web site quite well >> also. > > Clearly not... > > >> Here are a few real-world examples of fixed width sites: >> http://www.mashable.com 972px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-mashable2560-01.jpg > >> http://www.stackoverflow.com 960px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-stackoverflow2560-01.jpg > >> http://developers.whatwg.org/ 820px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-whatwgdevel2560-01.jpg > >> http://lifehacker.com/ 980px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-lifehacker2560-01.jpg > >> http://developer.yahoo.com/ 974px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-yahoodevel2560-01.jpg > >> http://paulirish.com 936px > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-paulirish2560-01.jpg > > >> These are some really successful web sites with talented developers >> using fixed width layouts. Their sites all look great everywhere. > > > Maybe you need to define what you mean by "talented", "successful" and "look > great". Clearly here these sites don't make much of anything big enough to > evaluate, certainly providing little evidence of enough talent to both > understand and care about the impact of screen density on px layouts from > the perspective of non-designer web users. NAICT from here they all look > like they were designed for print. Here's what I meant: talented = I think that these people are smarter than me, with regard to web d. They've had significant experience working on high-visibility sites and/or they've made significant contributions to the web d. community, earning my respect. successful = lots of visitors look great = pretty These are all my opinion, from my point of view. I wasn't trying to refer to some normative definition. Note: There are talented designers/developers working on ugly sites with no users. e.g. ghodmode.com :( There are extremely successful sites that are ugly and have clueless designers/developers. e.g. facebook.com There are beautiful sites with clueless designers/developers and no visitors. They're usually flash-based. > In most cases it's about appropriate line lengths, which are always > measurable in em. Not everyone agrees on what is too long or not. If you > want 15 word lines and two columns straddling the center with 2-4 word > lines, 60em or so may be a good starting point. Yep. That's the answer to the original question. That wasn't so hard, was it? >> It doesn't seem like anything is holding back screen densities. I''m >> a novice, but I keep hearing about retina and super amo oled plus and >> 4k HD displays. It seems like hardware capacity is out-pacing >> software capacity. > > Your first sentence and third sentence conflict. For the most part, pixel > densities _are_ being held back for lack of software support. For several > years, desktop displays had a fairly wide range of sizes for any given > resolution. More recently the range has been much narrower, with more > discrete resolutions available than previously, and depending on > manufacturer, a range of about 3" or less for each one up to the highest of > the high volume sizes (1920x1080). Okay. I don't get it. This is clearly a topic that you understand much better than I do. If you're talking about the desktop environments, is it related to web d.? -- Ghodmode http://www.ghodmode.com > -- > "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant > words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) > > Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! > > Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
