Website Page Width

[kruser]

Hello,

Wondering what your preferred page width is when you design a website?

I originally designed pages to be about 650 pixels wide back in 2000. Then I made the width stretch to the window around 2004, but browser complications put a stop to that approach. For the last couple of years I have been building sites to be about 775 pixels wide, but in the last couple of months several clients have asked for the pages to be even wider.

Can someone share thoughts on the best approach for page width for 2009?

Best Regards,
Randy

[jamescabrera]

You should consider moving up. I used to design pages at a width of 750px for the 800x600 crowd but I think it's safe to say, from stats I've seen, that the computer makers have already saturated the market with computers having resolutions equal to or greater than 1024x768 (since about 5+ years ago I think they started selling computers with res of 1024x768 as a standard).

With that said I now design web pages with a minimum width of 900px nowadays it's impractical to be viewing the internet on 800x600 no matter what site you're looking at.

[morestar]

you could also consider designing your website(s) according to the golden ration...apparently it would be much more pleasing to the user's eye...

Golden Ratio Calculator

[Uncle Dog]

Originally Posted by morestar

golden ration

Is that a chicken nugget?

I still tend to design for 750 and always with a serious eye on how a page looks when printed.

The average user rarely opens their browser in full screen mode - "it's easier to get at stuff on the desktop" - so looking to the average screen size for inspiration is misguided.

[morestar]

chicken nugget? KFC?

[junosama]

I try to stay a bit under 1024 pixels wide so around 900 is prob good, but its ok to fluctuate a bit =)

[Doc]

Is there a downside to coding for a %, rather than a specific width?

[keddy1]

I feel apart from the technical side the most important part is how it looks and suits.its the main deciding factor for me

[ran_dizolph]

Is there a downside to coding for a %, rather than a specific width?

I just find that a fixed width gives me more predictable control over positioning/layout.

Also, I typically design @ 960px width, which is a good width for average monitor resolutions.

[junosama]

My fav with is 960 pixels wide this will work for most users and is a very standard size in the web design community.

[DaveSawers]

There's really no good reason not to design a flexible width for whatever browser width the user decides. It really isn't that hard to do.

[korbs]

960 is the width I use most often now. Look up "960 grid system" for examples and css.

[jamescabrera]

Originally Posted by Doc

Is there a downside to coding for a %, rather than a specific width?

I like working in fixed width so you have absolute control of positioning elements. Mainly in marketing design you want certain things to appear above others or to the right or to left, and also top-to-bottom design is very important in designing for marketing. These kinds of things it's better to work in a fixed width environment.

As for fluid designs, it's still evolving and there's a lot more artistic freedom and room for innovation in this field. I believe it's better suited for artists as opposed to businesses. Browsers and resolutions will constantly be evolving so there's some risk involved in coming up with a fluid design for a business, but that's just my personal opinion.

[junosama]

960 pixel page with for website designs is very popular now there is even a movement to try and make it a web standard at: 960.gs

I basically try and keep my sites under 1,000 pixels in width.