On my other entry, I quoted Jeidai, who said:
I do notice white space, but it’s better than take up the whole space because there’s no max width setting for the text. x.x (Which is why I’ve got the browser squished thin.)
Back in November last year, I wound up having to choose a fixed width layout over a fluid layout for my web portfolio, mainly because fixed width layouts are easier to code and they don’t look so wide and awkward on a larger monitor. I asked Jeidai (who uses 1680×1050) about it, who said:
I know I make my stuff fit within a 600-700px column roughly, just because any wider and I find myself struggling with going from the right side back to the new line on the left. …Does that make sense? My typography book said something like maximum words per line should be 25 … or maximum characters of 72, something around there. I dunno. If I go to a site with a wide column I usually end up shrinking my window down to 800×600 size to read comfortably.
(According to one principle of typography, lines of text that are too long become too uncomfortable to read.)
Some other examples:
- My brother (who is an average web user. He doesn’t have a website…that he updates regularly, although he does have a MySpace profile) hates fluid layouts. He finds them awkward to look at (though he doesn’t seem to be have a problem with reading them), since according to him, they look worse as you widen them.
- My web design teacher (from Fall ‘06) browses on 1600×1200. She doesn’t mind if non-fluid layouts are a narrow column of text.
As far as “wasted screen space” goes, I’m not sure how it could be wasted. Websites aren’t like a brochure, where you’re limited by your budget (how much paper you use). In fact, white space can be a good thing, when used properly (i.e. can be used above headings, to give users an immediate idea that the heading belongs to the text below it). Use white space and don’t stuff so much into one screen. >:B
Modified: November 29th, 2008
Hm. Technically speaking, I still design for a 800×600 resolution - that is I use fluid width of 80%, with a max-width of 900px. Wider resolutions I think, are best reserved for better display of artwork, graphics, and the like. Text can remain designed for smaller resolutions.
I’d say 900px is pretty good. The max-width of your layout is 900px, which also includes the sidebar, so I wouldn’t say your content area is too wide.
I just don’t like it when a layout’s max-width is around 1200px or more, which forces my eye to start on one side of the screen and make its way to the other side, only for it to have to hop back on the other side to read the next line.
(And I have 1280×800, which isn’t as large as what others seem to be boasting, but I still get the entire 1200px.)
I saw a fluid layout recently that had no max-width. I first saw it at 1050px wide, and thought it seemed a bit funky, then I went to 1680px wide and was absolutely stunned. The whole browser viewport was covered in text. Did this person expect me to really read the website like that?
Do you know if that person has a really large screen resolution (about 1400 or more)? I thought that maybe people who have no max-width for their layouts don’t use really large resolutions themselves, so they don’t know how awkward it could get. Just a thought.
No, let me rage. XP
All righty then.