|
|
900 Pixels Wide Is A Typical Browser Window? (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Doof has a little snippet in the bookmarks bar which reads...
javascript:void(window.resizeTo(1024,830))
...because that's the way I like it, uh huh, uh huh. Even on a 30". Yes.
(
Last edited by Doofy; Aug 19, 2008 at 04:44 AM.
)
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by richwig83
Not sure where your getting 1200px from! If you want compatibility, stick with 700-800px width... 900 would even be pushing it for non-wide screen monitors!
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't even know why the browser width is being questioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth
My patiently waiting is being difficult?
Perhaps you'd like to next complain about how much space my short posts are taking up.
You and your smugness. Who could possibly patiently wait that long.
You are not taciturn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by schalliol
I guess the question I was trying to ask is, do you guys really use 900 pixel wide windows? If so, why don't you make them wider? Is it because the blue bars keep getting wider as you expand the window?
If I made the page much wider than 900 px, then the length of each line of text is too long to easily read quickly. Most people's eyes wander when returning to the beginning of the next line of text, and making the end of a line and the beginning of the next line further apart causes eye strain.
An good example would be a book that people read often and for long periods of time, the Bible. Notice how most Bibles have narrow columns of text. It makes for a much more efficient and less strain inducing read. Newspapers are the same way. Look an any major news site and you'll see that they limit the amount that the browser displays the length of a line of text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
Doof has a little a little snippet in the bookmarks bar which reads...
Code:
javascript:void(window.resizeTo(1024,830))
...because that's the way I like it, uh huh, uh huh. Even on a 30". Yes.
That sounds about what I roll with on my 24" imac screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
If I made the page much wider than 900 px, then the length of each line of text is too long to easily read quickly. Most people's eyes wander when returning to the beginning of the next line of text, and making the end of a line and the beginning of the next line further apart causes eye strain.
An good example would be a book that people read often and for long periods of time, the Bible. Notice how most Bibles have narrow columns of text. It makes for a much more efficient and less strain inducing read. Newspapers are the same way. Look an any major news site and you'll see that they limit the amount that the browser displays the length of a line of text.
An amazingly appropriate response! I guess we each have our own feelings for how much space is the right space related to strain, but it sounds like a window between 900-1300 width for the folks around here.
|
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 7+ 128 Jet Black iPad Pro 128 + Cellular
FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by schalliol
... but it sounds like a window between 900-1300 width for the folks around here.
Oh no, when some posts get really long winded (ghporter!) I narrow my window to around 500-600.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
On 24" iMac, my browser windows are about 1100ish pixels wide. However, they are considerably smaller on my iBook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Comment from someone involved in making the 900px decision: we arrived on it to balance both the few users with small screens and of users with larger screens (we were well aware of the generous size of the typical Mac user's screen) with typographical ideals, which call for an ideal line width of one and a half alphabets for optimal readability.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghiklm
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABCDEFGHIJKLM
I love the current design, since it leaves the final decision up to the user.
antonio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't see any reason to change the 'NN layout. It's one of the cleanest and best readable layouts around.
Why change it, just so that users can post more crap in their sig
-t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
Oh no, when some posts get really long winded (ghporter!) I narrow my window to around 500-600.
I'm not that bad, am I?
Really? Ouch! I'll have to work on that.
But now I see why manuscripts, even mine!, need to be submitted doublespaced. Readability is a function of line length, white space, typeface, and colors. Mess with any of these too much, and you turn easy to read text into gunk.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd say 900 pixels is fine. I'm sure there's a few people here who read the forums on an Eee PC or similar sub laptop/UMPC/small screen portable. Those machines probably use an 800 or 1024 wide screen. Not everyone has a 24" iMac or 30" Cinema Display.
As for the sigs, leave them as they are, but I agree with the cutting down of long text sigs, machine specs could go into the user profile or something.
|
It'll be much easier if you just comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by schalliol
What does Windows have to do with anything? They used to only have full screen, but that's been a long time. I don't go full width either, but measuring my window right now I'm at 1150 pixels wide sitting on my couch on my MBP, that still leaves around 300 wide around to allow room for an IM I have up.
a) Windows is mentioned because it still defaults to full-screen view, and it's conditioned people to block everything else out of sight with browser windows where what used to be paragraphs are now two lines of text that snake across the entire screen.
b) So you keep 300 pix free to the side of your browser window, at 1440 screen resolution. That seems about right. Now, sit down for a second and figure out what would happen with a screen resolution of 1280 width, such as on the MacBook, of which VASTLY more have been sold...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
I'm not that bad, am I?
Really? Ouch! I'll have to work on that.
Don't.
Your posts are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
Don't.
Your posts are appreciated.
Very succinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status:
Offline
|
|
Obviously what Lone Star needs to do is simulcast his posts with Regular Length and Lite®
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
if we did have computer specs to the left under our names, you would see that I'm still rocking an eMac* and need the page design to be 900 px wide thankyouverymuch.
*at home. at work I rock a cinema.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
hang on, ill just count how many pixels wide my browser is, i'll get back to you all.
|
Macbook mid 2007: 2Gb Ram, Intel core 2 duo, 2.16GHz, 500Gb HDD, Snow Leopard 10.6.6
HTC HD7 (Windows Phone 7!)
iPod 5G 80GB
iPod Mini 4GB (Blue)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've noticed a couple signatures with four lines of text translate to about 7 or 8 lines on my iPod. When's MacNN Mobile™ coming around??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andhee
hang on, ill just count how many pixels wide my browser is, i'll get back to you all.
Still counting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|