Fixed Width or Full Width? The Users Vote...

[Jason Dunn]

Amazingly enough, the topic that seems to generate the most amount of commentary regarding this site is the fact that we went with a fixed width layout. When Fabrizio Fiandanese, the Thoughts Media designer & developer, came up with the fixed width design, I immediately loved it. Why? I thought it was tight, crisp, professional looking, and more readable. All Thoughts Media sites are targeted at a resolution of 800 x 600, because through a survey we found that the majority of people kept their windows around that size, even if they were running in a much higher resolution. I had wanted to shift to a 1024 x 768 layout to allow for larger pictures to be posted (our current limitation is 400 pixels wide), so I was a little disappointed when it became obvious we had to stick with our 800 x 600 friendly layout. Myself, I run 1280 x 1024, and I stopped browsing full screen a couple of years ago when I went above 1024 x 768 in resolution. Beyond a certain point, the wider a column of text is, the harder is is to read. I typically browse with my IE window around 900 pixels wide, give or take.

Many of the top Web sites out there have fixed columns widths (like MSN, C|NET, CNN, Google, Yahoo), so I'm honestly shocked at how much uproar our design decision caused. :lol: I think most of this comes from expectations - people know that Pocket PC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts have variable-width designs, and people were expecting the same thing here. I've read that people find it harder to read, but I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that, since everything I know about typography and layout tells me that a column layout, rather than a full-page width, makes text easier to read. This article has some interesting information (http://www.notestips.com/80256B3A007F2692/1/TAIO-5TT34F) about the subject as well. I'd be interested to know what people think now that a week has gone by - has the design grown on you? Does it still bother you? Do other sites you visit use fixed width?

Regardless of how strongly I might feel about this issue, ultimately this site is here to serve you, not me, so I'm open to considering changes. When the first people starting complaining about the layout (one of the DMT staff members actually), we figured there would be others, so we planned for the ability to have subscribers be able to change the layout to a variable width layout. Will that do the trick? Should the default remain fixed width, or should the fixed width be an option for those that like it? Last but not least, let's take a survey - but I should note that the survey results are just one more piece of data for me. I'm not prepared to act on the survey alone, but I want to see from a statistical standpoint where people are on this issue.

[encece]

I personally use 1024 x 768. Most of my coworkers in our design group do as well...if not a higher resolution. But I hate walking over to the Project Managers, Salespeople, and Customer Service to see all of their computers set to 800 x 600. It's so damn ugly, I dont know why anyone would set their PCs to view such LARGE text and icons. It does no justice to the UI and it just makes everything look worse and difficult to work with.

No offense to anyone...but it seems the less PC savvy you are, the lower your screen resolution. (people with poor eyesight excluded).

My personal opinion is fixed width as you cant go wrong on any PC. And you have the most control as to how the page looks rather than different on every PC depending on resolution as well as how wide their side Favorites, History or Search sidebars are.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The main problem I find is that the fixed width on the main page constricts the text too much. There's the nav bar on the left, and ads/forum links on the right, so the resulting content takes up like less than 1/3 of the entire screen width!

[Neil Enns]

Agreed with yslee. I think fixed width is fine (I honestly hadn't even noticed you'd done it until your front page post), however I find the center column of core content a little bit too narrow.

[Tim Williamson]

Ok here are my issues with fixed width:

1. It's much easier to quickly scan through the news items on PPCT because each item seems to have a more unique layout/shape. With DMT each item looks almost exactly the same at a glance.

2. PPCT seems to be able to fit more news items on the screen (3-4 on PPCT as opposed to 1-2 on DMT).

3. It seems like there aren't as many pictures/screenshots being posted on DMT, so again it's more difficult to quickly skim through the news items.

4. Although, I do think fixed width has a more professional look to it.

Why don't we try out variable width for a week and see how we like it, maybe we'll hate it and scream for fixed width back. ;)

Hope this is some helpful criticism! :)

[entropy1980]

I vote fixed... :D

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I voted for no fixed width in the end, though there really should be a choice for the fence sitters. =P

[iand]

How about a minimum width set for an assumed 800x600, but expandable if the users screen is wider?

See for example my site at http://www.thegadgetbox.com. The center column expands or contracts, while the outer columns remain a fixed size to accomodate ads, menus, etc.

[Jason Dunn]

Agreed with yslee. I think fixed width is fine (I honestly hadn't even noticed you'd done it until your front page post), however I find the center column of core content a little bit too narrow.

But here's the funny part - the width of the centre column is EXACTLY the same as Pocket PC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts at 800 x 600 resolution. It's the same design on all three sites, no narrower - unless your browser window is significantly wider than 800 pixels on the other sites, there's no difference. ;-) But that's a valid point if most of you are browsing with your windows 1000 pixels wide - DMT won't expand to fill that.

[Jason Dunn]

How about a minimum width set for an assumed 800x600, but expandable if the users screen is wider? See for example my site at http://www.thegadgetbox.com. The center column expands or contracts, while the outer columns remain a fixed size to accomodate ads, menus, etc.

Yes, that's the way www.pocketpcthoughts.com and www.smartphonethoughts.com work now.

[OSUKid7]

Thanks Jason! Glad you're willing to change. :)

I think the best option is to use a percentage width of maybe 75-85% for the largest table. Although much less complex, the main website I currently maintain (Singleton Piano Studio (http://www.SingletonPianoStudio.com)) also uses the width style that iand mentioned.

[encece]

How about a minimum width set for an assumed 800x600, but expandable if the users screen is wider? See for example my site at http://www.thegadgetbox.com. The center column expands or contracts, while the outer columns remain a fixed size to accomodate ads, menus, etc.

Yes, that's the way www.pocketpcthoughts.com and www.smartphonethoughts.com work now.

But you still need to limit your pics sizes so what does this really get you other than filling out the screen on higher res?

[Jason Dunn]

But you still need to limit your pics sizes so what does this really get you other than filling out the screen on higher res?

Absolutely nothing other than wider text that is progessively harder for the human eye to read the wider is gets...which is the point I'm trying to raise. :wink: Anyway, interesting comments, and interesting votes - it's not that far away from being an even split (figures).

[OSUKid7]

But you still need to limit your pics sizes so what does this really get you other than filling out the screen on higher res?

Absolutely nothing other than wider text that is progessively harder for the human eye to read the wider is gets...which is the point I'm trying to raise. :wink: Anyway, interesting comments, and interesting votes - it's not that far away from being an even split (figures).
yeah, after I first brought up the topic I thought about that...but I really think that wasting 2/3 of my screen is worse than having to read wider text. Not sure there's a great solution to this problem that's good for both small and large resolutions. Good luck. :wink: lol

[ctmagnus]

fwiw, I find that both this site and PPCT, in 800x600 windows, have a tiny, little bit of horizontal scrollage left in them. Rather annoying imo to get the last letter of an ambiguous word in a sentence that's the full width of the cell. But 90% of the time there's no issue.

[Neil Enns]

Absolutely nothing other than wider text that is progessively harder for the human eye to read the wider is gets...which is the point I'm trying to raise.

Hmm. But in this case it's not like the choice is between "fixed-width for ease of use" and "full-screen 1280x1024 to annoy the user". It's between fixed-width and adjustable-width.

If you go with adjustable width those with an 800x600 screen can read fine. Those with their browser set to 1000ish wide get slightly more text that is still legible. And only freaks running maximized will hit the width-hard-to-read issue, and they just have to narrow their window to fix it.

Neil

[Jason Dunn]

fwiw, I find that both this site and PPCT, in 800x600 windows, have a tiny, little bit of horizontal scrollage left in them. Rather annoying imo to get the last letter of an ambiguous word in a sentence that's the full width of the cell. But 90% of the time there's no issue.

You know, I was ready to say "No it doesn't", but darn it, you're absolutely right - I just used a little app called Sizer and there is a few pixels worth of side-scrolling on DMT and PPCT. :? I'll see about getting that fixed....

[Jason Dunn]

It may be a Sizer issue then, as I use it too.

Nope, I'm in 800 x 600 now on my monitor, and I see a few pixels (perhaps 10) worth of space in the forums and on the front page, causing side scrolling.

Gosh everything is big! 8O

[Fabrizio Fiandanese]

fwiw, I find that both this site and PPCT, in 800x600 windows, have a tiny, little bit of horizontal scrollage left in them. Rather annoying imo to get the last letter of an ambiguous word in a sentence that's the full width of the cell. But 90% of the time there's no issue.

It should be fixed now. Let me know if you are still seeing scrollbars.

[ctmagnus]

It should be fixed now. Let me know if you are still seeing scrollbars.

Yep. PPCT too. SPT is fine though.

Excellent work otherwise! :way to go:

[Fabrizio Fiandanese]

It must be a Sizer issue then, since I've changed my screen res to 800x600 but I can't see the scrollbars.

[ctmagnus]

It appears so. At 800x600 full screen there's no horizontal scrollbar but it's there at 800x600 according to Sizer; when you set the window to 800x600 in Sizer with the desktop at 800x600, the window doesn't go full screen. Rather, it goes to the edges of the screen such that IE's borders still show. The few pixels that the borders take up are what're causing the anomoly.

[ctmagnus]

I did some fiddling: PPCT will develop the scroll bar below 807px wide (as of the USB Swiss army knife post). PPCT forums get it below 805px. DMT main page and forums get the scroll bar below 808px.