| 6:37 pm on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't 100% page width suffice?
| 7:47 pm on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
1000px is the best IMO :)
most of the users (86%) use a resolution equal or greater then 1024x768: [w3schools.com...]
| 8:33 pm on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I vote for 100% - or at least, something that works for as many users as possible. If the number above were taken as representative that would potentially be 14% extra sales!
If you want to restrict to a particular width, I'd base it on web analytics data - to ensure I was not cutting out or putting off visitors that historically make sales.
|King of Bling|
| 8:03 pm on Jan 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm... so 100% full-screen is not too much?
| 8:31 pm on Jan 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Are you considering users that have a few smaller windows going at one time? I normally have a couple windows going at a time and not full size by any means.
you're trying to force a page size when the potential user could be viewing the page in a variety of different settings. I'm just pointing out that at 100% page width you cover everyone no matter how they are viewing it...
If it was set at 1000px (for example) the chance that something important might be hanging off the right side of the browser and never be seen exists.
[edited by: Terabytes at 8:33 pm (utc) on Jan. 14, 2009]
| 12:21 am on Jan 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
King, not 100% full-screen, 100% page width - whatever the width of the page is even if it isn't at full-screen. But even in this case the page will usually have a width that it will not go below, given the size of certain page elements such as a graphical header or banners.