Fixed Page Width

How big can you make it today?

[Fortune Hunter]

I am in the process of doing a web site and I am debating setting my width at a fixed 900 pixels wide. I realize the standard is typically 800, but I am wondering if the resolution on people's screens has generally increased so much that this is unnecessary these days.

I like the wider width so I can use multiple columns on the page more effectively without sacrificing display control as I would with an elastic layout. My concern is will I still run into people (enough to worry about) that would end up scrolling side to side if I did 900 pixels wide. What do others think?

[Gibble]

I would sacrifice a little bit of pixel perfect layout control and go with a fluid layout. Just because the average screen resolution is increasing, doesn't mean the user has their browser maximized...or is even on a computer

[CWebguy]

I don't know anyone who uses 800x600 anymore. I always do mine about 950px. 900 is probably a good number. When I get better at fluid design I'll do it that way.

[CWebguy]

Another problem with keeping it fixed at only 800 is it might look strange on a 1200 screen, just something I have always thought about.

[cyril kearney]

Like CWebguy I always do mine at 950px

[Fortune Hunter]

I would sacrifice a little bit of pixel perfect layout control and go with a fluid layout.

I would agree with this, but depending on how high people's resolutions are set at these is probably more than just a little bit of pixel layout control. In some cases it might be dramatic. My laptop for example runs with 1920 x 1200 which is very high, when I look at fluid sites they are pretty well spread out and can look pretty weird.

I am glad to hear a few of you using 900 to 950 layouts. I think that is the route I am going to go and take a chance with the small amount of people who are still running 800 x 600.

[rocknbil]

^ ^ Absolutely, a single line of text across a wide format screen is a legibility problem worse than 10 px text. :-)

I've loosened up my width, and many don't agree due to compatibility issues, but I restrict it with max-width:

width: 95%;
max-width: 950px;

My reasoning: IE 6 doesn't support max-width, but it's getting close to the time we can assume if you're on IE 6 it's not likely you have one of those wide-screen monitors. If you do, it's a bit like Cadillac hub caps on a Toyota. :-)

[Skywarden]

I know of many business users that still run 800x600. It pains me to see them side-scrolling to look at websites, but many of them like their screen sizes the way they are because of poor vision and the natural resistance to change. So either fluid-width or 800px width is generally what I choose, though if the website was, for instance, geared towards gamers or technology buffs, chances are they (the target audience) have a higher screen res and a newer browser, so I'd be comfortable with 900 fixed. My 2 cents.

[maximillianos]

My parents run 800x600 still. They need it to read the font. Something to think about as more and more folks over 60 get online...

[Gibble]

If they can't read the font...perhaps glasses are in order?!?

[Fortune Hunter]

They need it to read the font. Something to think about as more and more folks over 60 get online...

This one occurred to me as well. For this site that isn't even the target audience and doubt too many, if any, people in that bracket would be looking at this site. However your point is well taken, based on the audience.

[BradleyT]

950 here also.