I am just thinking to myself what the fuck is wrong with this world and how stupid can it get. Any new computer you get comes with a wide screen 16:9 but all (except gummlanparty.net) websites now are going back to the 4:3 format (strait down the center with blank bars on both sides). So now it would be better to have a 4:3 screen so more of the sites are seen with out scrolling so now I have one extra step that wastes my time. Vista does the same thing more clicks to get what you want more time wasted. It seams in the big picture that the world is getting stupider and technology is following that curve in every part. Does any one see this curve too?

Can you programmers please explain this?

PS Thanks Gumm for making your site use my full screen.


----
STS-124 RTFM!!!

Quote

Can you programs[sic] please explain this?

because some people still need it.


The problem is mass market vs quality. Do you a) make money off of everyone and make it so stupid that people don't have to better yourself? or b) Sell it to 10% of the population?

----
I am no more an evolutionist than I am a gravatationalist or an electromagneticist.

I figured that.

They should build sites that let the browsers adjust the setting. So the site is made in wide or flat and then I tell Firefox that I like it in wide and it displays it in wide. Maybe some day in the future someone will think of that or should I patent that technology now?

Quote by lcde

Quote Can you programs[sic] please explain this? because some people still need it. The problem is mass market vs quality. Do you a) make money off of everyone and make it so stupid that people don't have to better yourself? or b) Sell it to 10% of the population?

----
STS-124 RTFM!!!

Some sites do something similar with font size. I don't see why they couldn't also do something like that with aspect ratios, assuming they used nothing but stylesheets to make it work.

I used to be all against fixed width sites myself, but they make multi-column layouts SO much easier to plan out.

----
no fat chicks

Quote by skeezer65134

I used to be all against fixed width sites myself, but they make multi-column layouts SO much easier to plan out.

Yup. Put yourself in the position of the web designer trying to lay out a page. Things need to be in certain positions relative to each other to make sense, in terms of usability and aesthetics.

And considering that mouse scrollwheels are now universal, I don't see much of a cost with needing to scroll. I've had experience with web usability and user testing, and minimizing clicks and scrolling is a common trap that people fall into thinking that less clicks=better. Most of the time, it does not. You need to look at the whole process of what goals the user wants to accomplish and provide clear pathways for them, regardless of the number of clicks or scrolling. Otherwise you end up with a ton of shit crammed onto the homepage that users can't understand. Where I work, you have no idea what a huge problem this is.

Also, I'm no PG worshiper, but there's a reason he posts his essays on his website in such a narrow column: it's easier to read. (eg http://www.paulgraham.com/gfaq.html read the last FAQ )

Lastly, the fact that new computer screens are 16:9 probably has more to do with the production process of the physical screen, since 16:9 is HDTV. Unfortunately, watching movies and working on a computer are not similar activities.

Quote

16:9 probably has more to do with the production process of the physical screen, since 16:9 is HDTV.

I've also read that widescreen monitors are cheaper to produce due to the way the LCDs get cut from the sheet.

Also, web designers aren't designing specifically for widescreen, they just design based on horizontal resolution. SOME will take vertical resolution into account, but for the most part, vertical resolution is irrelevant. Some designs pretty much require a fixed width (due to HTML/CSS limitations or complications), others can get away with variable width designs (like the gulp site).

Taking a fixed with design and making it a variable width design is, in many cases, an incredibly slow and painful process. For example, this design would not be completely trivial to make variable width because of the way the images are made. It's doable, sure, but trivial, not to me.

Fixed Width = Easier.

But on most sites, I don't even notice it unless it's really bad (designed for 800x600, for example).

----
Do it for the Lobster

Yeah, I usually just design with 1024 in mind, since XP basically helped force people to run at LEAST that wide. Typically, if I'm rocking a fixed width design, I'll shoot for a content width between 780px and 980px wide. My blog, for example, is 958px wide. It's large enough to run on 1024 full-screen or windowed in anything higher (like my 1280x800 laptop).

As a personal opinion, I like right-side menus a lot more as well. It keeps the content viewable without needing to vertical scroll too much on smaller devices, like phones, netbooks and internet tablets. You don't need to menu too often, but you always need the content. It also has a lot of SEO advantages whether you use tables or floating divs too.

----
no fat chicks

Quote

I'll shoot for a content width between 780px and 980px wide.

same here. its better for your eyes and typical reading also. i just fullscreened gulp and it killed me trying to read (2500x1600) Much better fitting you into a little box on the top left of my screen.

Quote

As a personal opinion, I like right-side menus a lot more as well.

According to Emily (web designer) left-navs are more natural. just so you know what they are teaching and preaching out there.

----
I am no more an evolutionist than I am a gravatationalist or an electromagneticist.

That may be true, but I still love me my right-side menus!

----
no fat chicks

Quote

According to Emily (web designer) left-navs are more natural. just so you know what they are teaching and preaching out there.

From my experience, users don't like the right side menus. Almost all of my customers use left navs, and I've even had a few change a right-nav template to a left-nav (non-trivial for a non-programmer).

I personally prefer left-navs.


As for resolutions, I run fullscreen at 1400 or 1600 wide, and like that, even for the stretching. I don't have a 2500 wide monitor though. I've had more users complain that their fixed width design wasn't wide enough than the converse. I don't think I've had a user complain that the content should be fixed width.

----
Do it for the Lobster

Quote

I've had more users complain that their fixed width design wasn't wide enough than the converse. I don't think I've had a user complain that the content should be fixed width.

Depends on your user base. Your users are younger more technically inclined. They prefer dark background with lighter text and small fonts.

Where I work, our customers are middle-aged to elderly, poor eyesight (much harder time distingushing similar colors), have trouble controlling the mouse, 83% use IE (20% of that is IE6), and they all hate change. They want big text, simple interfaces, black on a white background.

So, know your customers. However if you target everyone, remember that the baby boomers (age 44-64) are now the largest group of internet users.

So true. My users are 50% firefox and 37% IE (11% of that IE6 - so like 4% total IE6 market share).

I know what you mean about the big text, poor eyesight folks. I do have a handful of folks in their 40s who end up increasing the font sizes on their site.

----
Do it for the Lobster

Quote by Chops

I know what you mean about the big text, poor eyesight folks. I do have a handful of folks in their 40s who end up increasing the font sizes on their site.

I know this drives me crazy working on a 23" LCD set to 800x600. We just need to get use to it because its not going to change any time soon.

----
STS-124 RTFM!!!