Should we make our site full screen?

Chris OConnor

Our current site is 750 pixels wide and it is very frustrating trying to make such a narrow design fit everything that needs to be fitted. There are reasons why our site designer made the site 750 pixels wide, but maybe those reasons aren't enough to warrant keeping such a design.

Mr. Pessimistic

If it will look the way it looked when I logged on before...NO!

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor

There has to be a reason why I am seeing sites all over the web that are much wider and still look good.

phiend

750 pixels seems kind of outdated. I know in the past there has been a mentality that websites MUST fit into an 800x600 screen. But the last time I checked, which was a few years ago, 1024X768 had started a very sharp increase in usage to at the time become the most popular resolution. I have always preferred sites that automatically resize depending on your screen resolution. Why use pixel dimensions when HTML allows you to use percentages.

Mr. Pessimistic

Thats true chris...you can use percentages instead of hard set dimensions. Try setting the table size to like 90% or something.

I use 1024X768, but I like the way the site looks that way...but a little bigger may not hurt.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

The only thing to worry with in changing the screen size is the readibility of each line. We're used to reading sentences in page format, where our eyes scan to the end of a line, then drop down a line to read the next. Increasing the width of the page may increase the size of each line. Imagine reading a line that spanned the width of you computer. Now imagine making the resolution on your computer higher so that the line was 25% longer. Now make it 25% longer again. All I'm saying is that we need to be careful to make sure that BookTalk pages remain readable at higher resolutions. We should make changes to the screen width if it will help the site in other ways without significantly reducing readibility.

Mr. Pessimistic

Good points Mad. I agree.

Personally, I like the look now...and I am at 1024x768. Not many people go to a higher res than that I think.

Maybe just boost the site view up to 800 and be done with it. Not many are still at 640x480!!!

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 10/16/06 4:42 pm

phiend

I don’t know, I’ve got 1680x1050 resolution, and I have to say that it bothers me a lot more when more than half my screen is blank space than when I have paragraphs expanded into one line. But then again many sites also account for this, they put things to the side of forum posts, little info boxes and what not, they put limits on how much a single box can expand, stuff like that. There are other things to take up screen real-estate than the post. But the bigger problem is I don’t think ezboard is that versatile.

Chris OConnor

I don't plan on having text going from one side of the screen to the other. We can use tables to break everything up into clean sections.

I'd simply like to be able to use the margins for links, banner ads, book images, etc.. Right now there is almost as much green on my page as the middle area.

Look at our current forums page. It is exactly 750 wide. I'd like the forums to be maybe another 50 pixels wide. This total 800 wide. Then I'd like a sidebar that is about 200 pixels wide - or 224 if 1024 is an acceptable screen width as Nick says above.

There is a TON we can do to benefit BookTalk by having a wider site. I'm not going to spend any time here going over that stuff. I am already totally convinced that we'd be better off with a wider site. I would then have the freedom to to do so much.

Wow! I just changed my screen resolution from 1280 wide to 800 and I cannot believe people have to use such resolutions!

www.randi.org/
Check out James Randi's site. He clearly uses percentages. At 1280 wide resolution the site fills the whole screen. At 800 it still looks good as the text simply wraps down.

Now here is InfidelyGuy's site. He clearly doesn't use percentages OR he uses a combo with a certain width as the minimum and anything smaller it forces the viewers screen to scroll. www.infidelguy.com/

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/16/06 4:56 pm

Loricat

side-scrolling....not good.

My screen resolution is 1024 x 768 and there's maybe 1.5 inches of green on either side.

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

Chris OConnor

Lori

I'm confused. The top sentence says "side scrolling....not good." Is your screen currently side-scrolling? If you're at 1024 x 768 you should not be experiencing side scrolling. And your second sentence indicates you have green on both sides, so maybe you were just saying, "Side scrolling is not good, but I'm not experiencing it personally."


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT