reasons for choosing between 800px and 1024px width?

Per Jessen <per (AT) computer (DOT) org> wrote

Now, I have a pilot-user who's complaining that it is too wide; he would
much prefer 800px.

Seems reasonable. Unless you're graphically serious (maybe a map
browser or an image gallery, not just eye candy) then there are very
few good reasons to go wider than 800px.

Most of the web is still about columns of text. For good ergonomic
reasons, text lines should be kept short, as they're more readable
that way. For average combinations of eyesight, resolution and screen
point size, there just isn't any _need_ to be bigger than 800px.

Of course your design should be flexible. It should respond to
whatever size window the user throws it into. Some users will want
physically bigger characters and they may achieve this (tech savvy) by
playing with relative text sizes or (more empirically) by keeping
their ten year old computer with the 640x480 screen "because the
letters are bigger than on the new one" (a genuine comment, easily
fixed by doing some re-configuration of the new machine, but basically
an absolutely inarguable piece of user feedback).

So do a good technical design. Deal with any window size the user
wants. Certainly permit the users to control text size.

The two bad things to do would be to either _require_ >800px width, or
to assume that because users have big screens, then you are entitled
to a big window.

I run 1600 wide at home. I rarely have any window over half of full
width.

Per Jessen wrote:

I'm currently building a dual-purpose site:

1. standard web-presence for a company (also primary sales-channel).
2. customer interface for infrequent access to misc. customer data.

Width-wise I've designed everything to fit a full-window MSIE or Netscape
without producing/needing a horizontal scrollbar. That is, about 1020px
wide.

A given browser's window can be much wider, or even much narrower. Why would
you design for one width at the expense of others?

Now, I have a pilot-user who's complaining that it is too wide; he would
much prefer 800px. When I asked specifically why, his reasoning was that
that way he could fit a browser with my site in amongst his 3-4 open
windows on a 17" CRT at 1152px width.
Personally I find this reasoning bogus, but a quick survery of large
corporate sites did show that most are indeed 800px - although still with
a significant number being 1024px.

A well-designed site will display just fine at both widths.

In choosing 1024px for my site(s), I have assumed that the world (at least
the main targets for my site) will have a CRT or flatscreen of at least
1024x768.

I do, but your site will be too wide for my default browser width (usually
around 800px but sometimes I might browse in an even narrower window).

The main targets of my site are corporate users. I do fully appreciate
that some parts of the world will still be using smaller CRTs at only
800x600 (or even less), but I have consciously decided to ignore that.

And they will definitely consciously decide to ignore you and your
cluelessness. The back button still works really well, even in Afghanistan.

So, am I wrong in choosing 1024px? Are there other usability aspects I
have completely ignored? (I don't need space for advertising).

You're wrong in deciding you as site author/designer should be choosing one
width at the exclusion of others *at all*.

--
Shawn K. Quinn