Commonest browser window shapes?

[ktinkel]

I feel as if I have been stuck in a cave for years!

In reading on another topic, I caught this intriguing comment (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/complexdynamiclists) by Christian Heilmann on A List Apart (a few paragraphs down under “The easier option”):… most screens are wider than they are high …
Heilmann’s comment surprised me — but he posted it in May 2005, so it is probably not based on old standards.

But anyway, are most pages really wider than high? Is it important to design as if they were?

I tend to keep my browsers set in a somewhat page-shaped format (about 800 pixels wide X 1000 to 1200 pixels tall). When I design a page, that is the shape I assume. Of course, height isn’t controllable, so if I have a tall window, I would see a tall page.

Maybe this is why I sometimes need to scroll horizontally (something I loathe) — maybe I have been a portrait peg in a landscape hole the whole time.

Does it matter, so long as key content appears at the top of each page (what we old print-heads think of as “above the fold”) and if the pages flex to suit the width of browser windows?

Do you see mostly horizontal pages on the web? Maybe I am the only one surprised by this. I should probably poke my head out my cave more often!

[terrie]

>>kt: I tend to keep my browsers set in a somewhat page-shaped format (about 800 pixels wide X 1000 to 1200 pixels tall).


I do consider the width--I use about 800px too) as I *loathe* having to scroll side to side but I rarely--if ever--consider the length of the page...I don't mind scrolling down...I'd rather have all the pertinent info on one page than have to go to another page because I've hit some arbitrary length restriction.

Perhaps that's just the nature of my particular pages???

Terrie

[ktinkel]

I do consider the width--I use about 800px too) as I *loathe* having to scroll side to side but I rarely--if ever--consider the length of the page...I don't mind scrolling down...I'd rather have all the pertinent info on one page than have to go to another page because I've hit some arbitrary length restriction.

Perhaps that's just the nature of my particular pages???Maybe so (and mine too).

But do you take pains to get all the important stuff in the top part of the screen?

[Andrew B.]

My browser window varies, but it is always wider than it is high. Right now it's 862 x 670

[ktinkel]

My browser window varies, but it is always wider than it is high. Right now it's 862 x 670Interesting.

Do you have a favored setting or just adapt it every time you change web sites? Or?

[Andrew B.]

That is my favored ballpark setting. It varies a little as I adjust the bookmark/history panel on the left, and the number of bookmarks on the tool bar underneath. But if the web page won't compress well into the size of my window, I close the bookmark panel. And on rare occasions, I switch to full screen mode.

[terrie]

>>kt: But do you take pains to get all the important stuff in the top part of the screen?

Well...kinda sorta...'-}}

I put a brief description of the image and process used to create it along with the image itself...I've never really concerned myself too much with it being over screen-length/page length--I do set my image length to be about 600px so that as someone scrolls, they will see the entire image...

I do use my browser full screen by the way...

Terrie

[ktinkel]

I do use my browser full screen by the way...Ahhh. Another approach that hadn’t occurred to me! Thanks.

I hate programs that assume they are entitled to the full screen, and certainly do not set things up that way myself — but my monitor is two feet wide, and one of its best virtues is that I can have multiple stuff laid out and available, just a quick click away. (Very useful when I am referring to one web page while composing a message on another, for example.)

[ktinkel]

That is my favored ballpark setting. It varies a little as I adjust the bookmark/history panel on the left, and the number of bookmarks on the tool bar underneath. But if the web page won't compress well into the size of my window, I close the bookmark panel. And on rare occasions, I switch to full screen mode.Another full-screen viewer. Never even occurred to me.

I think I have become set in my ways! Of course, I favor pages that flex to suit the browser, so it probably doesn’t matter too much. But maybe it would be fun (or productive) to think different [sic] for a change.

[terrie]

>>kt: but my monitor is two feet wide, and one of its best virtues is that I can have multiple stuff laid out and available, just a quick click away.

Yeah...if I had a monitor that large, I'd probably not be using the browser at full screen either--my monitor is 19"...

Terrie

[annc]

I feel as if I have been stuck in a cave for years!

In reading on another topic, I caught this intriguing comment (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/complexdynamiclists) by Christian Heilmann on A List Apart (a few paragraphs down under “The easier option”):… most screens are wider than they are high …
Heilmann’s comment surprised me — but he posted it in May 2005, so it is probably not based on old standards.

But anyway, are most pages really wider than high? Is it important to design as if they were?

This is probably referring to the fact that most users of browsers are Windows users running Internet Explorer, which defaults to the full size of the screen. add the various tool and navigation bars at the top, and a small bar at the bottom, and you have a window that is considerably wider than it is tall.

[ktinkel]

This is probably referring to the fact that most users of browsers are Windows users running Internet Explorer, which defaults to the full size of the screen. add the various tool and navigation bars at the top, and a small bar at the bottom, and you have a window that is considerably wider than it is tall.Hmmm. Maybe so. Whew.

[jgr]

In reading on another topic, I caught this intriguing comment (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/complexdynamiclists) by Christian Heilmann on A List Apart (a few paragraphs down under “The easier option”):… most screens are wider than they are high …

I think that's right, but I don't think that has anything to do with the length of a web page. The fact is, folks don't mind (and are using to) scrolling down. It's the side-to-side scrolling that drives people bonkers.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

Windows users running Internet Explorer

I'm a Windows user, and they only browser I've got is InternetExplorer, but whether or not I run it at full size is up to me, and to a certain extent up to the designer of the page I'm looking at. Many designers assume you want yards of white (or prettily coloured) space each side of minuscule text, while others use the space available to them sensibly.

I'm using a '19 in' CRT screen, 1280 pixel × 1024 pixel.

[annc]

I was talking about most users, Michael, not you. ;-)

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

not you

I really am an average viewer when it comes to browsers. I think KT may be influenced by her super-luxurious screen and possibly by her preference for the wide margin sort of page (though not for unreadable text!). If you look at any of the BBC's pages, you'll find that (a) full use is made of the space and (b) the image does respond to the 'larger/smaller' text size setting.

[donmcc]

I suspect that the majority of people will view the web with full size windows, up until they get to larger than 19 inch monitors. I tend to do so, although I will narrow the window if the page is using a full width line of small text, and is created correctly (so that the text fills available space, not being forced inot som arbitrary width mode.)

Thus, I tend to also assume a wider page than tall.

Don McCahill

[Franca]

That is my favored ballpark setting. It varies a little as I adjust the bookmark/history panel on the left, and the number of bookmarks on the tool bar underneath. But if the web page won't compress well into the size of my window, I close the bookmark panel. And on rare occasions, I switch to full screen mode.Yes. It sounds as though you and I use our browser windows in very much the same way.

[Franca]

Another full-screen viewer. Never even occurred to me.Well, he did say, "on rare occasions". ;-) I hardly ever use my browser full-screen, but every once in awhile I need to for some Web page or other. I detest scrolling horizontally.

Of course, I favor pages that flex to suit the browser, so it probably doesn’t matter too much.Agreed. I always appreciate pages designed that way.

I never really thought about how "most people" size their browser windows before. Interesting!

[Richard Waller]

Websites wider than 800 wide worry me. I would have to reset my display window.

But my chief worry is text lines wider than about 550, as the human eye has then to scan across each line and skip back hoping to find the beginning of the next line. Yes I can usually adjust my window width to make the line shrink, but why should I bother. I note that newspapers tend to have column widths much less than this for ease of reading, and I ignore any articles wider than I want to scan.

[ktinkel]

I never really thought about how "most people" size their browser windows before. Interesting!Me neither. And it is interesting.

[ktinkel]

I think that's right, but I don't think that has anything to do with the length of a web page. The fact is, folks don't mind (and are using to) scrolling down. It's the side-to-side scrolling that drives people bonkers.Definitely true for me — I really, really hate having to scroll horizontally. I am just much too lazy for that sort of stuff!

In fact, I have seen sites whose right-hand column is invisible — I may not even realize it is there — because it is completely hidden and I do not notice the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom. That is not ideal, obviously.

But in terms of designing a horizontal page, it should either flex to suit browsers or have ample hints that there is something over on the right! That assumes you want people to read it, of course!

[ktinkel]

But my chief worry is text lines wider than about 550, as the human eye has then to scan across each line and skip back hoping to find the beginning of the next line. Yes I can usually adjust my window width to make the line shrink, but why should I bother.That is just good typographic sense. For print, no more than about 60 characters and spaces per line is about right; it might be better to have even narrower lines for reading on a monitor.

I note that newspapers tend to have column widths much less than this for ease of reading, and I ignore any articles wider than I want to scan.Actually, newspaper columns are often harder to read than wider lines just because they are so narrow, often with awkward wide spaces in the lines because of hyphenation problems.

I tend to ignore articles set in tiny type, which is very often the case for Mac users when the page has been created by a Windows user. It is especially annoying when the type size has been reduced by using pixels (or much worse, points) so it simply will not enlarge no matter what. The reduced type is also often on relatively very wide lines.

[jgr]

But in terms of designing a horizontal page, it should either flex to suit browsers or have ample hints that there is something over on the right!
That, as my sister-in-law would say, is a True Fact.

[terrie]

>>jgr: That, as my sister-in-law would say, is a True Fact.

LOL!!! A friend of mine used to say "that's a true m'girl"...'-}}

Terrie

[Richard Waller]

**** awkward wide spaces in the lines because of hyphenation problems. ****

This is a different and challenging problem. If you go for justification at both sides then you always sem to get funny spacing and forced hyphenation. I would always go for just left justify, and certainly not centred except for some critical headings.

[Mike]

Definitely true for me — I really, really hate having to scroll horizontally. I am just much too lazy for that sort of stuff!


I remember reading that some large proportion of browser users are not even aware there is a horizontal scroll bar. The same study reported that a significant proportion of users seldom or never used the vertical scroll bar.

If they don't see what they want in the window then they chose another site.

I certainly get very annoyed if I have to use the horizontal scroll bar and I have visited sites where only some time later have I realised that there was more to the page than could be seen.

I always try to ensure:

1. Everything will fit in a width of 800 pixels and, if it's not a graphic then make sure it will wrap successfully to 500.

2. All important information is visible in about the first 600 pixels. (I try to use Dreamweaver's 1024 x 768 screen size which provides about 955 x 600 pixel window size.

3. If I want people to scroll down then make it absolutely obvious by the design of the page that there is more information below what can be seen.

[Mike]

I suspect that the majority of people will view the web with full size windows

That may depend on the platform. On a Windows machine I find I generally view pages full screen but I never do on a Mac. I'm generally browsing in more than one window at a time and like to keep them most at least partially visible.

I'd do the same on a PC except that I find it harder to do so on that platform.