Compensating width for MS Office
I design for 800x600 resolution (most common?) but what I find from experience is that lots of people use Microsoft Office and have that Office toolbar on the right side of a Windows screen. To avoid a bottom scroll bar on my pages I design for a width of 750. Does anybody else give any thought to that Office toolbar or is it just me? Just wondering.
openmind posted this at 23:42 — 10th January 2003.
He has: 945 posts
Joined: Aug 2001
I don't. I use a table fixed at 100% to fill the browser screen anfd that way it resizes whether the toolbar is there or not...
fifeclub posted this at 03:28 — 11th January 2003.
He has: 688 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Do most of you do the 100% width? I used to and gave it up because it would end up presenting my page in ways that I didn't intend (so I started using fixed widths. I'm not going that route anymore but I was recently trying to do something with absolute css positioning and variable widths kept looking horible in alternate sizes. I'm just wondering how 'real' webmasters approach this.
Suzanne posted this at 05:08 — 11th January 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I generally use relative sizing wherever possible. It's better all around for all users, developers and alternative browsers.
openmind posted this at 18:10 — 11th January 2003.
He has: 945 posts
Joined: Aug 2001
I use the 100% width for a "container table 1cell by 1 column. I then use fixed width tables for the side nav and let the table in the middle do its stuff. I've chaecked it with various resolutions and browsers and it seems to work OK but then I'm not a "real" Webmaster...
I just think I am....
mjames posted this at 18:42 — 11th January 2003.
They have: 2,064 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
Some use the toolbar, but unless you have data to back it up, I don't think that number is enough to make you alter your design. It's like worrying about design height because people might have multiple toolbars on their browser. I wouldn't sweat it.
Renegade posted this at 02:48 — 12th January 2003.
He has: 3,022 posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Yeah, I usaually have have one or two relative widths for my page, which is usually the middle, or the content area. just about everything else is fixed widths
Suzanne posted this at 03:16 — 12th January 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Just to throw it out there, the dock/drag thing are usually on the sides on a mac, even my ibook set to 800x600 has one. Browsers on the mac have sidebars (ie5/mac is set to default as well), as well as their pc counterparts and take up further real estate.
Keeping your page under 480px wide is ideal (the widest element on the page or combination of elements side by side).
Using relative widths and sensible planning, you can still have a page that looks good at higher browser widths.
Most people with larger monitors don't view full screen unless looking at flash presentations/full size images, so keep that in mind. Even at 12xx by whatever I have my monitor set to, I don't have the browsers bigger than about 800x800.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 10:40 — 12th January 2003.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
I'm on 1280x1024 and I always view web pages at full width. Most everyone else I know on high resolutions does the same...
Apart from the obvious reasons like playing games, viewing large images, and reducing scrolling, there is that feeling of leaving so much space wasted, so I usually keep windows maximised.
Also, I keep all extra toolbars on auto-hide, and again, everyone else I know who use toolbars (apart from the taskbar) does the same...
Suzanne posted this at 15:17 — 12th January 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Sorry, I usually include the caveat that Gamers and Graphic artists aren't included in that method of use.
Writers and people who need to read on the web, i.e. programmers, tend to not go full screen. Why? Because the lines of text get too long and it becomes hard to maintain comprehension. When you're reading for a missing semi-colon or trying to understand a large technical document, that can be critical.
Besides which...
if the site requires full screen 1280xwhatever to be viewed and it's NOT graphic based, then there is no way in hell anyone will be able to read the damn thing on anything other than a computer monitor.
Suzanne posted this at 15:18 — 12th January 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
(N.B. I often have two documents side by side -- browser on one side, what I'm working on on the other.)
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 15:39 — 12th January 2003.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Yep, when reading I use restored widths. Sometimes I want to view long lines on code when programming, so then I maximise (wait, how is that relevant? :\).
Anyway, I suggest looking into your visitor demographics and then deciding primarily if you should even go with fixed-width after all. Then think about whether your content requires a relative or fixed layout.
A good webmaster should create fluid and accessible layouts, regardless of whether people who actually need it widely accessible use it or not. The content should be potentially accessible to all users, presented at least barely coherently.
But a 'real' webmaster, IMO, ends up designing to demand. i.e. if there are no visitors using, say, PDAs, then the webmaster doesn't design with that (potential) audience of PDA-users in mind.
Suzanne posted this at 15:43 — 12th January 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
heh, exactly! design so the user can do what s/he needs to do, don't force the user to fit your design, make your design able to fit the user.
badda bing badda boom!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.