Printable View
... table width, that is? I hate the old 760px rule! 800 looks a bit better to my eyes but is there anyone out there brave enough to go wider? If you have seen some great wide site designs, can you post them in this thread so I can see who has the cahones to go big.
And before we get into the old argument about those poor people with 14" Packard Bell monitors... at what point do we say "FUCK 'EM"?
i don't go wider than 775 right now because 20% of my traffic will have to scroll sideways, and i've seen that affect my sales. in another year, i expect we'll all have to do everything over when 10 of that last 20% moves to 1024.
God I can't wait for that day Patti! Working at this width seems so 1999 now. Do you happen to have any links to sites that are using an extra wide format now? Maybe you've run across some in you reviews for gaydemon.
i can't wait, either. testing every page in two sizes is a pain, and sometimes i could do MUCH cooler things designing for only one resolution.
actually all the sites i can recall are made for 800x600 or just a hair wider.
I would say that we have gone beyond that say Fuckem stage already. I mean we are asking people to open the wallet and pay for access to websites right...people who have money to subscribe to sites and more importantly in my mind to stick around with my sites have money and are not using old equipment. I design my sites for 1280X1024.
I mean, it's like designing for dialup...sure, some of the surfers still use it but are they really the ones with the money to buy memberships and as I said before...stick around to keep their money rolling in each month...I don't think so. Nope, the ones who are serious have broadband...
Lee
interesting to hear this pov. when we designed for 1024, our sales went down. when we started designing for 800x600, they went back up.
i think there are other reasons besides money why some people have less than cutting edge computers. a lot of older people i know are VERY nervous of trying/using anything new. my mom held onto her 450 till a couple months ago and she certainly has more than enough money for a new computer. also people with poor eyesight find 800x600 a better resolution because everything appears bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiB
living in Panama I have adapted a new definition of wide...I mean these women just LOOOOOOVE their fried chicken :beauty:
cheers,
Luke
I put the main part of the site on 760 and put some nice color on the background as contrast. I have to say, I actually prefer having the main area of the design limited to 760, because it's easier for the eye (at least my eye) to read shorter lines, or just have to go through less of a width to view the whole thing. Hope I'm making sense...
Makes perfect sense but you forget that not everyone is looking at your sites with a 800x600 or 1024x768 monitor resolution. For surfers looking at your site on a 1280x1024 (or even 1900x1200) monitor is seeing a tiny postage stamp (an exaggeration) on their screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by tigermom
As few as 10% of surfers are looking at my sites at 800x600. The vast majority are viewing my sites at 1024x768 or larger resolutions. I'd rather look forward and make my tables wider and fill them with bigger text and larger images. One thing for certain... the trend is for larger resolutions. No one is going to Best Buy and buying a 14" monitor. Today, you can buy a 17" tube monitor for $50. There is no reason for these dummies to be surfing the web on 14" monitors unless they are masochists! I say FUCK 'EM!
Ok. I'm making a bold statement. As of today, the new standard is 1000px table width! Get with the program or be left behind! ;)
I actually saw 2 sites with wide tours recently, one was at gaybaggyboys.com and the other is a site redesign at myfriendsfeet.com
The inside of the baggy one is made for 800x and I haven't been into the feet site in awhile so don't know if the tour size reflects the member area size.
Thanks for the links Bec! I do like the look of myfriendsfeet.com's tour but it does suffer from the super-long text lines that tigermom mentioned. It would probably be best if they restrained the text line length somewhat because it is hard to follow.
Now gaybaggyboys.com... it looks like a free site design. I've never been a fan of tours like this. And the larger format doesn't add any new dimension to the tour. It's just blah. I understand that sometimes these types of tours convert well but I'm always amazed that they do.
For a 1024x screen size to fit it with a little space on the sides and not have to side-scroll, 960px max table/css layer is best I think
browsers render differently sometimes. I dont know about tables but for CSS IE is the worst as it stretches the width if it's not properly set making stuff look like shit :(
and then there's lost space on the sides because of the scrollbar etc