Optimal Webpage Resolution
- Thread starter ChAoTiCpInOy
- Start date
GregGreen
Golden Member
- Dec 5, 2000
- 1,687
- 4
- 81
960 wide is a standard now but research is showing that the vertical height is relatively irrevelant -- the idea of the fold doesn't apply to online media.
960px wide is good because it protects for monitors/browsers that are only 1024px wide and it breaks down into grids/columns wonderfully.
960px wide is good because it protects for monitors/browsers that are only 1024px wide and it breaks down into grids/columns wonderfully.
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
That's what he's saying. 960px wide for a webpage with neutral buffer beyond that
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
800x600? Yeah, I guess for a mobile site.
with a mobile site you're better off using a fluid width.
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
it means you're setting the width of an element to a percentage of the parent element, in case of the first element this would be availabe space in the browser window (screen res minus browser chrome).
you seem like a novice so I'll just post the css for it
Code:
html, body
{
width:100%;
}that will set the <body> element to a width of 100% of the available space in the browser window.
I had to Google 'the fold web design' and find this page to understand what the hell you meant by that. Thanks!
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
that article sums up the design theory pretty nicely, but there's also a very practical reason for the fold being dead (unfortunatly that's probably the real reason, eventhough the fold was always stupid).
back in the day there only really was 1 maybe 2 screen resolutions out in the wild, 800x600 was the most common, but today.. well just look at this chart
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
Most websites these days are designed for 1024x768.
I do not like dynamic sites, things just do not fit together on every resolution like they should
What is this fold your talking about?
960 wide sounds good to me - not so wide that it breaks the frame of a 1024 resolution. I usually set my sites to around 800 - 1000 wide.
I do not like dynamic sites, things just do not fit together on every resolution like they should
What is this fold your talking about?
960 wide sounds good to me - not so wide that it breaks the frame of a 1024 resolution. I usually set my sites to around 800 - 1000 wide.
Last edited:
Broheim
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2011
- 4,587
- 3
- 81
"dynamic sites" can work great if you're smart about it and plan ahead, but it's easier to screw up and you have to think about when it's a good idea to use images.
the fold is an old concept in webdesign that carried over from printed media, basically all content was kept above a 600px horizontal line, everything below that was just shit.
OP get acquainted http://960.gs/ (or any other grid system) if you learn to use it, it can be a great help (as long as you don't let it restrain you).
ViviTheMage
Lifer
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Thanks that's great, now what if I have elements that are X pixels wide in that page?
In reality you can get stats from sites that show the most common resolutions.
If you are a real programmer in the corporate world you should easily have this available.
1024x768 should be a minimum in general, but it's your target audience that's going to drive it.
If you are targeting the old and wealthy 800x600 may be ok. Those on welfare probably the latest 30" cinema screen resolution.
palswim
Golden Member
Dynamic with minimums.
This way your content can't be crunched into oblivion. But if someone goes wider it allows for it.
xanis
Lifer
- Sep 11, 2005
- 17,571
- 8
- 0
One guy has been working with a 970px grid, which *supposedly* works a little better than 960px is and is more visually appealing. Here's a link for those who are interested: http://code.google.com/p/the-golden-grid/.
To answer the OP's original question: In my experience, 960/970px is the way to go. You *could* go up to 1024px, but in my experience I've found that 960px looks a hell of a lot nicer. Height doesn't mean anything unless you're trying to design something that fits entirely in the window, so it's really not even worth worrying about.
To answer the OP's original question: In my experience, 960/970px is the way to go. You *could* go up to 1024px, but in my experience I've found that 960px looks a hell of a lot nicer. Height doesn't mean anything unless you're trying to design something that fits entirely in the window, so it's really not even worth worrying about.
Last edited:
Krazy4Real
Lifer
- Oct 3, 2003
- 12,221
- 55
- 91
M0oG0oGaiPan
Diamond Member
960 or fluid.
As for the fold it depends on what you're making the page for. I'm pretty sure ads perform better above the fold. Look at a lot of the adsense niche templates. You're main goal is to get the user to click an ad and leave your page.
If it's a blog page you usually want the ads within your content. I think google has a heatmap somewhere on their site.
As for the fold it depends on what you're making the page for. I'm pretty sure ads perform better above the fold. Look at a lot of the adsense niche templates. You're main goal is to get the user to click an ad and leave your page.
If it's a blog page you usually want the ads within your content. I think google has a heatmap somewhere on their site.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter