Each time a site has some sort of fixed-width content area that is definitely centered in the particular browser window, will be optimal width of their area
I know this is mostly a matter connected with opinion, but I’m curious what individuals think.
For instance, check out http: //www. mcsweeneys. net/, which is just about the narrowest I’ve found.
And there’s this url, which has your pretty wide subject matter area.
I’m trying to decide on that width of my personal internet site, which is the following: http: //nocloset. net/. At the moment it’s set on 551px. Any opinions can be welcome.
Trouble with a fixed-width content area is, even when it looks ultra-wide to help someone on 800×600 res, someone with 1280×1024 (or, the almighty forbid, 1600×1200) can think it’s tiny. This is exactly why even in these cases it becomes good to look at a percentage.
Your first example, I do think, is far far too narrow — excessive scrolling for me. Your second model isn’t linked in.
Your site is seen as a little wider, I do think.
My second model was literally this url (webdesignforums. net)! These have a fixed width for that content area that occupies a large portion from the screen width. If i expand the kept pane in this browser or reduce in size the browser window, I have to accomplish some horizontal scrolling.
I use my personal site largely for their " Links" page (sort of as being a portable set involving bookmarks), and with a fixed width helps to ensure that the links usually are always positioned identical way, so I will find them easier. I didn’t employed to do it that way, and I’d often be trying to find links.
But I’m service plan increasing my subject matter width from 551px to help about 700px, or it could be something in in between.
Anyhow, thanks for a person’s feedback.
My oh my, hahahaha! Yeah, absolutely missed that. I do think such an expansion could well be good. And without a doubt, this site is a superb example of proper width, but it is usually designed with 1024×768 as their intended purpose, I believe.