Opinions about web design wanted

[Fergie]

I notice that most of your sites (and mine) are not full screen. That is to say, they are between 800 & 700 pixels.

What do you think the reason is that we like less than full screen? I'm looking for a new template for a poker site, and I find myself drawn to full screen mode, however, when I think about filling the space, it is a little daunting.

Is the reason we usually select our widths so that the site displays correctly in more browsers and resolutions? I use css rather than tables, so I know the pain a full screen design can be.

[Tom]

I think 900-1000 in width is more common than 700-800.

I am still trying to decide if I like designs that are full width. I almost think it is easier to navigate and read with the defined border widths.

[GregW]

I like smaller width sites because they look more manageable and friendly. The wider the site is, the more scanning you have to do to find out what the site is about and where everything is.

Also, with a wide site you are going to have long lines of content, which can make it difficult to read paragraphs as you jump from one line to another.

I'm sure that are pros for wide designs, but I much prefer them skinnier for the above reasons.

[PokerNations]

I prefer a wider but shorter (vertically) design. Most computer monitors nowadays are all widescreen and affordable, so that's the direction of desktop displays anyway.

And with a wider design you have more above-the-fold space to promote specific items. And with a smaller vertical users don't have to spend days scrolling through tons of stuff.

I prefer the more compact designs like this anyway, but my needs and uses are vastly different from an affiliate, so your mileage may vary.

[Fergie]

I've been doing this too long - that or I'm rediculously overdue to rework my sites, and I'm still thinking back when 800 X 600 pixels was pretty standard a resolution for the average surfer. D'oh!

The higher resolutions we all use now is something I really didn't consider. I'm using 1680 X 1050 pixels here. A full screen design would be fairly hard to read at that resolution without having to work too damn hard!

PokerNations, you made some very interesting points, though. Hmmmm....wide and short....that has a lot of merit.

There's more to consider than I thought when I posed the question...

[PokerNations]

Hmmmm....wide and short....that has a lot of merit.

My wife certainly thinks so....

[Fergie]

My wife certainly thinks so....

LMAO!!!

[MewsicLovr]

800 is becoming somewhat outdated, that was a standard back when monitors usually had small resolutions, but nowadays 1024px wide screens are the norm, so I would try to plan for that. After accounting for borders, and the natural width the browser inserts, you wind up with somewhere around 970px width you can safely use that will be just fine for your target audience.

Full screen has its merits, especially if you would like your layout to be more "fluid". Fixed-width is somewhat better if you like your pages to look and behave a certain way (for instance, if you have a lot of table elements to position everything exactly in the right spot). However, keep in mind that users with large resolutions will have lots of empty space in the sides of their browsers, assuming they use full screen. I myself just make the window smaller so I have more room for...other stuff.

In the end both are fine assuming they are applied correctly, there's not going to be a single correct answer.

[GoodKarmaKid]

There was a pretty good discussion about page width about a month ago:

Lets talk about width (not length) :)

Thread got a little derailed towards the end, but derailed in a good way. quite a bit of good info in there.

Jason