Web Analytics Made Easy -
StatCounter 800x600 ... not really - CodingForum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

800x600 ... not really

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 800x600 ... not really

    Hi all,

    I've just finished designing a site and have had it on review for the past couple of days on this forum. One thing that a lot of people have been saying is that it steps outside the 800x600 resolution sizer screen.

    What measurements, in general, do people use to define table widths - I went straight to 800 px, but I realise now that that is SCREEN size, not DISPLAY size.

    Anybody got any tips?

    Cheers

    Azz
    code, debug, dubug, debug, *SIGH* debug, debug ...

  • #2
    There's an article on Webmonkey on this subject:
    http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/...html?tw=design

    Hope that helps you along. The best bet however would be to make your layout scaleable, but that isn't always possible.
    Regards,
    Ronald.
    ronaldvanderwijden.com

    Comment


    • #3
      I usually define maximum width of layout to 750 pixels (800x600, 24 pixels for scrollbar), horizontal-alignment at center. This fills both 800x600 and 1024x768 windows nicely, still giving enough space for all kind of tricks. If a person surfs with smaller resolution or with small browser window, I consider this to be his/her problem. Sometimes (depending on case), I use relative measurements (like percents) for parts of the layout.
      Zvona
      First Aid for
      Web Design

      Comment


      • #4
        I think for 800 x 600 resolution the optimum table width is 780. Try it out.
        Scripting | JavaScripts | PerlScripts | Python Scripts | Articles | My Journal

        Comment


        • #5
          you should defiine you width and heights using CSS % , that way you know it will work!
          photoshop too expensive? use the GIMP! www.gimp.org

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with Zvona - 750 is a good benchmark; for above-the-fold height I use 450
            "Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm with whackaxe on that one - use fluid layouts.

              What if someone with WebTV (320px width...???) decides to view your page???
              Vladdy | KL
              "Working web site is not the one that looks the same on common graphical browsers running on desktop computers, but the one that adequately delivers information regardless of device accessing it"

              Comment


              • #8
                On average a 800x600 browser window maximized in reality is 760x420. This accounts for a the start bar, the toolbar and menu bar is the browser, etc.
                OracleGuy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Depends on th page obviously but I generally find using % a pain, a combination of the two can be good though. Personally I have main text in a 70% width container which itself is set 150 or so px from the left. This always gives a bit of space to the left whatever the resolution, a bit of space to the left is always good.
                  [+] Computer/PC issues [+] Silverpaw3D
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  Never buy a dwarf with learning disabilities...

                  ...it's not big, and it's not clever.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I tend toward a defined width, centred table of somewhere in the
                    750 by 440 area for a start page on a site. Should allow zero
                    scrolling for 8by6 and above.

                    Default M$windows scrollbars are about 22px wide, window
                    edges are 5px each side - 22+5+5 = 32. 800-32 = 768px max. I
                    like a lil bit of whitespace though so tend toward a lower figure
                    than that 768.
                    Vertical space is even peskier - 440 was just a size I used ages
                    ago and no-one really complained so I kept it.

                    'tis better to be ten pixels under available size than to have a
                    half inch of scrolling needed.
                    ضkii - formerly pootergeist
                    teckis - take your time and it'll save you time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      or then again you could even go as far as to have a script resize evrythingusing screen.availheight and screen.availwidth as a start point and resuz evrthing according to that
                      photoshop too expensive? use the GIMP! www.gimp.org

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I dont usually use %'s unless i have something that has to be 100% or something that cant really be done in pixels. 700 - 720 is usually what i find to work alright... makes us peeps on 800*600's feel like there is a little space left on our screen
                        redhead
                        New to the CF scene
                        Last edited by redhead; Feb 23, 2003, 04:52 PM.
                        redhead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I have a centered-table at 95%. I find this to be very good, although it's only a one-column layout. My personal suggestions for a 2 colum would be to have around 130 to 160 pixels fixed width on the left and let the right side be the rest of the width. Nice discussion!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X