reasons for choosing between 800px and 1024px width?

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.
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.

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. 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.

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


thanks
Per Jessen, Zurich

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:01:52 +0200, Per Jessen <per (AT) computer (DOT) org> 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.
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.

What's bogus is the assumption that you cannot make a site to fit every
browsing solution. That's right - every.

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.

Bzzzzzzt.

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.

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

Oh, you're dead wrong.

Design the site with semantic markup, style with CSS, and you can have the
page succeed in PDAs, old browsers, new browsers, everything short of the
backside of your damn golden retriever.

Read here a while if you doubt me. Designing for a specific width is
outdated and unwise. Designing for any possible visitor is the way to go.

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Per Jessen wrote:

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

Your user is misinformed. What he would really prefer is a design
which fits any reasonable width, including the one that he is
currently using. And you should do the same.

When I asked specifically why,

Wrong questions often bring the misleading answers. Specifically
"why" do you think you need to design for a single fixed width?
Don't answer that, but rather, make good use of your time by reading
the c.i.w.a.* groups for discussions of "fluid" or "flexible" page
design.

Per Jessen per (AT) computer (DOT) org wrote:

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

yes

you've got a medium that allows you to work so that the user can have the
screen area and text size that suits them and you are attempting to
override their preferences...you are completely ignoring the primary
aspects of usability

you'll find that as displays get larger, ever more people are browsing
with windows that aren't maximised and using the additional screen estate
to multitask more...you are also ignoring the fact that whilst desktops
are getting ever larger displays, more and more smaller devices are
becoming available with web access...displays AREN'T getting
larger...displays are covering a wider range

in general you need a site to be comfortable to use between 640 and 1200px
in width and still usable at the extremes...this isn't hard to do

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Neal wrote:

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

Oh, you're dead wrong.
Design the site with semantic markup, style with CSS, and you can have the
page succeed in PDAs, old browsers, new browsers, everything short of the
backside of your damn golden retriever.

I fully appreciate that and I am (of course) using CSS. Still, when you
decide how much information to put on a single page and whether to let
lines break or not etc., having a particular size in mind seems to help?
Don't you guys *aim* for a minimum size, even if your site(s) are also
viewable in smaller?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Wrong questions often bring the misleading answers. Specifically
"why" do you think you need to design for a single fixed width?
Don't answer that,

My reasoning was to target a minimum size - the site will be viewable in
other widths, but optimally in on 1024px width. Should I not aim for an
optimal width?

Eric Jarvis wrote:

in general you need a site to be comfortable to use between 640 and 1200px
in width and still usable at the extremes...this isn't hard to do

Hmmm. I agree it's not that hard to do, but I just find the 640 size too
small.

Thanks for the quick answers - much appreciated!

/Per Jessen, Zurich

Per Jessen per (AT) computer (DOT) org wrote:

Eric Jarvis wrote:
in general you need a site to be comfortable to use between 640 and 1200px
in width and still usable at the extremes...this isn't hard to do

Hmmm. I agree it's not that hard to do, but I just find the 640 size too
small.

I'm surprised at that...it's actually a large estimate for a minium...if
you are doing mass market stuff you need to take into account the web TV
providers that give their users less than 600px to play with and no
horizontal scrolling

remember you don't need a design to scale evenly...you can also arrange
for it to "fold" and "unfold" when the available area increases or
decreases

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Eric Jarvis wrote:

Per Jessen per (AT) computer (DOT) org wrote:

Eric Jarvis wrote:
in general you need a site to be comfortable to use between 640 and
1200px in width and still usable at the extremes...this isn't hard to
do

Hmmm. I agree it's not that hard to do, but I just find the 640 size too
small.

I'm surprised at that...it's actually a large estimate for a minium...if
you are doing mass market stuff you need to take into account the web TV
providers that give their users less than 600px to play with and no
horizontal scrolling

Agreed, but the primary target-audience is a corporate user. At least for
the first 2-3 years.

remember you don't need a design to scale evenly...you can also arrange
for it to "fold" and "unfold" when the available area increases or
decreases

What I had done, and I realize now this was a mistake, was to set the width
of the <body> (in CSS). This prevented reasonable viewing of the site in a
resized window. Couple of more quesitons popped up:

1. how would you go about settings a max size? i.e. let the site scale up
and down until eg. 1024, but such that I avoid having to think of users
with a 20" 1600x1200 screen?
2. what about the size of graphics, logos, pictures and such? Wouldn't I
have to have an optimum size to aim for in order to size those? (or
wouldn't it be easier?)


thanks again,
Per Jessen, Zurich

Per Jessen wrote:

1. how would you go about settings a max size? i.e. let the site scale up
and down until eg. 1024, but such that I avoid having to think of users
with a 20" 1600x1200 screen?

Use the CSS max-width property (not supported in IE). Using a real
browser, take a look at my site - http://tranchant.plus.com/ - and note
how the "content" section won't expand beyond a certain size dependent
on the user's font size settings.

2. what about the size of graphics, logos, pictures and such? Wouldn't I
have to have an optimum size to aim for in order to size those? (or
wouldn't it be easier?)

Yes. Graphics are a problem, and a heavily graphical layout can be a
pain to make scaleable.

You *can* size graphics in relative units, but this isn't reliable and
can degrade image quality.

--
Mark.

Mark Tranchant wrote:

Per Jessen wrote:

1. how would you go about settings a max size? i.e. let the site scale up
and down until eg. 1024, but such that I avoid having to think of users
with a 20" 1600x1200 screen?

Use the CSS max-width property (not supported in IE). Using a real
browser, take a look at my site - http://tranchant.plus.com/ - and note
how the "content" section won't expand beyond a certain size dependent
on the user's font size settings.

Mark, thanks very much! Looks pretty neat.

What do people do in MSIE then? As you will be only too aware, I can't
exactly count on my users using Netscape (especially not in smallish corp
environment).
Btw, max-width doesn't appear to be supported in Konqueror(3.1.4) either.

2. what about the size of graphics, logos, pictures and such? Wouldn't I
have to have an optimum size to aim for in order to size those? (or
wouldn't it be easier?)

Yes. Graphics are a problem, and a heavily graphical layout can be a
pain to make scaleable.

Fortunately, it's not really heavy on graphics, in fact just a single logo
banner.


/Per Jessen, Zurich

Per Jessen wrote in
<40a35523$0$21353$afc38c87 (AT) news (DOT) easynet.ch>

Mark Tranchant wrote:

Per Jessen wrote:

1. how would you go about settings a max size? i.e. let the site
scale up and down until eg. 1024, but such that I avoid having to
think of users with a 20" 1600x1200 screen?

Use the CSS max-width property (not supported in IE). Using a real
browser, take a look at my site - http://tranchant.plus.com/ - and
note how the "content" section won't expand beyond a certain size
dependent on the user's font size settings.

Mark, thanks very much! Looks pretty neat.

What do people do in MSIE then? As you will be only too aware, I
can't exactly count on my users using Netscape (especially not in
smallish corp environment).
Btw, max-width doesn't appear to be supported in Konqueror(3.1.4)
either.

You could have a look at:
http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/

HTH

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.