Site Widths

I’ve noticed that more and more sites are beginning to toss aside that no-horizontal scrolling rule for lower resolutions. Like CNet and AnandTech. Seems like widths of 1000 are becoming normal.

4 Responses to “Site Widths”

  1. Dave Says:

    Good, its about time.

  2. prissed Says:

    Gotta disagree with you there, Dave. I for one hate sites that don’t fit in 800×600. It’s not that my monitor is stuck @ that width. Actually, I love my 1280×1024 resolution (If my monitor were bigger, I’d use 1600×1200).

    However, at that high a resolution, there’s just too damn much surface area for my eyes to stay focused on a page. My browser window is always set to 800×600 because it makes things oh so much easier to read when text isn’t spanning across 1600 pixels (besides, the human eye can read approximately 52 characters - 2 alphabets - and still find the next line without strain, any longer and you risk the eyes losing its place often). ;)

    Plus, keeping my browser window small makes room for other applications and stuff on my screen.

  3. Chris Says:

    Most of the time, that 1000 pixel space is split up into columns, like a magazine does to help your eye read small print. I like it. I’d rather see everything in one go then to have to scroll down a page. The 1000 pixel widths should fit perfectly in 1024*768, just those 800*600′ers that have to switch up a notch.

  4. ethan Says:

    thank god

Leave a Reply