Why do web pages waste so much space?

[WelshBloke]

This is pretty much what I was thinking. I don't want to read a line of text that goes across the entire screen. It's much easier when the paragraphs are a certain width, and it's nowhere near the size of a typical monitor.

Newspapers dont give you one column of text down the middle of the page and big blank margins each side though, they usually fill the space with other articles or relevant information.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Newspapers dont give you one column of text down the middle of the page and big blank margins each side though, they usually fill the space with other articles or relevant information.

Yes, but newspapers are limited to a certain amount of real estate that they need to fit everything in; there's only a certain amount of text you can fit in 36 pages. Websites don't have that constraint, so they don't need to cram a whole bunch of stuff in, which is good because that sounds like it would be incredibly distracting. Come to think of it, a lot of websites already do that with animated ads, and it's incredibly distracting.

 

[kami333]

I'm still using 1024x768, 15" LCDs from 2001ish. My laptop is also 12" @ 1024x768. Haven't really had a reason to upgrade.

 

[BurnItDwn]

at home I run 5760x1080 (when my 24inch IPS died I bought 3 cheap TN's to replace it)

at work, I am stuck with 1366x768 on the laptop screen, with a crappy 1280x1024 monitor as well ... NEED MORE PIXELS

 

[palswim]

I don't like to browse in full screen. I actually send e-mails to Web Admins when I visit pages that require horizontal scrollbars.

 

[alkemyst]

Believe it or not, many people still use 2560x1600 to simply post a license plate picture.

ftfy

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Something about the 960 Grid rule or something? I'm no web designer but I believe most websites try to have a layout that is 960 pixels wide for a lot of reasons (I haven't really gone through it but try http://960.gs).

I like the new Amazon design. It looks like you need to have a width of somewhere between 960-1024 pixels to avoid horizontal scroll bars but if you maximize your browser, it fills up the page pretty nicely.

 

[zerocool84]

Because you need to cater to the lowest common denominator when making websites. If someone can't see it, they can't access it. You want the visitor to not have told scroll to see your site or at least minimize it as much as possible.

 

[xanis]

Part of the reason is readability. Humans have difficulty reading long lines of text. IIRC, the optimal number of words per line is something like 12. From a quick glance, articles on the AT homepage are running around 15-17 which is on the money.

Also, zerocool is right: You have to design for the lowest common denominator. Unless you have a unique design or need a 960/970 grid is more than enough horizontal space for content and allows for nicely-sized columns. Here's a good chart showing the usage of screen resolutions by year: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Why cant the page layout be a bit more dynamic and change depending on the available space?

Well-designed and coded layouts should do exactly this. It's called responsive web design. Basically, the idea is to code your website to dynamically change the layout based on screen size and proportion. The AT forums are what I'd call "basic" responsive; try playing around with your window size and watch how the elements and text move around.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It makes it viewable for a larger range of people. I remember when I still used 800*600 and some web pages would be larger than 800px wide, would be annoying. Though I find it's better to just stretch the web page to use the space that's available. That way if you have a wide monitor you will need to scroll less, but if you have a lower res you can still see the page fine, you just need to scroll more. I never code my web pages with a fixed width.

 

[xanis]

It makes it viewable for a larger range of people. I remember when I still used 800*600 and some web pages would be larger than 800px wide, would be annoying. Though I find it's better to just stretch the web page to use the space that's available. That way if you have a wide monitor you will need to scroll less, but if you have a lower res you can still see the page fine, you just need to scroll more. I never code my web pages with a fixed width.

From a strictly-typographic perspective, having text run across a wide screen is very hard to read and not very good practice.

 

[0roo0roo]

<----- 2x 1024x768 21" CRTs at work. The CRTs can go much higher, but i can't read it well as it gets higher.

As for the OP complaining about wasted space, how about all the people that like the stupid forum quick link bar to the left. I loved that it was gone during the early move to vB. But people wined because they were too goddamn lazy to click a couple extra times. Now we have that bit wasted space to the left.

forum link bar takes no space on the left...when you have wide screen.

modern os have gui scaling. you can run higher res and keep same size output, like the new ipad. no reason to run so crude as that resolution on a 21" screen.

and as xanis said, wide is not that great, it would be like having a newspaper with article blocks taking up the entire width...it is not eye scan optimal.

 

[alkemyst]

forum link bar takes no space on the left...when you have wide screen.

modern os have gui scaling. you can run higher res and keep same size output, like the new ipad. no reason to run so crude as that resolution on a 21" screen.

you'll shit brix.

 

[Wolves]

This will soon not be a problem when everybody will have 16:9.

Only wimps use 4:3 and 16:10 today.

If you live in present and future you buy 16:9.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Just went to the main AT page to read the new Nokia review and was struck by how much horizontal space is totally wasted.

I'm using a widescreen monitor (who doesn't these days?) and I'd say that the article takes up slightly less than a third of the available horizontal space.

Why are web pages designed like some sort of ancient Egyptian papyrus scroll? The design seems suited to the opposite of most monitors. (Most people have their monitors in landscape and most webpages seem designed for portrait).

/firstworldproblem

Because it's more comfortable to read. I hate how the [H] forums have the text going all the way along the page. Doesn't make proper paragraphs and it forces the eye to break contact with the beginning and end of lines, and that makes it really hard to read.

 

[JoeBleed]

forum link bar takes no space on the left...when you have wide screen.

modern os have gui scaling. you can run higher res and keep same size output, like the new ipad. no reason to run so crude as that resolution on a 21" screen.

at 1024x768 on a 21" crt it takes up 3" of horizontal space. Why i run this resolution is because my eyesight sucks.

At home i use my 37" tv/monitor at native 1920x1080. I forget how much space it takes up there, but because of the higher resolution i have windows 7 set to 125%dpi size and will often zoom some web pages to 125%-150%

When you scroll down a thread, there is so much wasted space because the quick link box is there. At the least it should follow you down the page as you scroll. With it not doing that, it seems to defeat the purpose for quickly changing forum locations. Having to scroll all the way back to the top, you might as well use the linked path at the top of the thread.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

modern os have gui scaling. you can run higher res and keep same size output, like the new ipad. no reason to run so crude as that resolution on a 21" screen.

Aren't a lot of apps still hardcoded for the default dpi though?

 

[0roo0roo]

Aren't a lot of apps still hardcoded for the default dpi though?

i think that was xp, vista/7 osx should scale now without issues.

 

[BradleyJ]

The tendency of having wider screens is really great but great in terms of watching movies and using applications (like having more space to use for your Photoshop or Dreamweaver). But it doesn't change much when we talk about web design because as several people pointed out it's more practical to have narrower width of the website...readibility, browser compatibility and knowing your target...Although it's important to say that plenty of websites started using the "extra" space to add a nice photo background that is fully shown in 16:9 and a bit hidden for the smaller screens.

 

[WelshBloke]

The tendency of having wider screens is really great but great in terms of watching movies and using applications (like having more space to use for your Photoshop or Dreamweaver). But it doesn't change much when we talk about web design because as several people pointed out it's more practical to have narrower width of the website...readibility, browser compatibility and knowing your target...Although it's important to say that plenty of websites started using the "extra" space to add a nice photo background that is fully shown in 16:9 and a bit hidden for the smaller screens.

I hate that even more

/grumpyoldman

 

[Red Squirrel]

This will soon not be a problem when everybody will have 16:9.

Only wimps use 4:3 and 16:10 today.

If you live in present and future you buy 16:9.

4:3 is the best for computers, I don't get why widescreen took over. I will have lot of trouble replacing my screens when they break. Widescreen is basically 4:3 with part of the top removed. You loose lot of real estate. Only in the past few years have resolutions caught up to a point where a widescreen monitor can have as much real estate as what 4:3 had.

Widescreen makes sense for TVs, but not for computers. Most computer related work requires more vertical space. If ever I go wide screen I'll probably end up just flipping them all 90 degrees.

 

[JTsyo]

I don't maximize my browsers so even though my monitor is a widescreen, my browser window isn't.

 

[rh71]

1920x1200 on a 28" monitor. Browser maximized. No reason to make myself go blind with crazy high resolutions. Don't really see wasted horizontal space.

 

[nickbits]

I don't maximize my browsers so even though my monitor is a widescreen, my browser window isn't.

yep

 

[Wolves]

4:3 is the best for computers, I don't get why widescreen took over. I will have lot of trouble replacing my screens when they break. Widescreen is basically 4:3 with part of the top removed. You loose lot of real estate. Only in the past few years have resolutions caught up to a point where a widescreen monitor can have as much real estate as what 4:3 had.

Widescreen makes sense for TVs, but not for computers. Most computer related work requires more vertical space. If ever I go wide screen I'll probably end up just flipping them all 90 degrees.

This is simply not true.

Just choose whatever you want or do you mean 2560x1440 isnt enough for you.

16:9 3840x2160 will soon be out there.