min-width, ideal size?

01-14-2005, 18:00

What do most people here consider the most
appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses
for courses?
I currently have my pages set to 650px
Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't
I set a width at all?

01-14-2005, 23:00

T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote:
> What do most people here consider the most
> appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses
> for courses?
> I currently have my pages set to 650px
> Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't
> I set a width at all?
>

You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in
which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be
widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea to
set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some Web
TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width
larger than that.

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

01-14-2005, 23:00

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5270edff58b5798db6d@news.individual.net ...
> T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote:
>> What do most people here consider the most
>> appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses
>> for courses?
>> I currently have my pages set to 650px
>> Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't
>> I set a width at all?
>>
>
> You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in
> which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be
> widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea to
> set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some Web
> TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width
> larger than that.
>

The rest of the page is pretty fluid, but I don't want the top
panel and top row of links to drop down, so I have the
min-width set at 650.
I know this isn't ideal but at that size, when the text is set
at largest in IE6 it is the narrowest I can get the page without
the text links dropping on to the next line.
Also how do I fix the font size when displayed in FireFox?
There is just one bit I want to fix, but it is re-acting the same
as all the other text.

The page is at,
http://www.sim64.co.uk/ordering-roses-online.html
It's all a bit basic, but I want the top line of text to remain the
same size, whilst the other is adjustable.
All other text is set as a % the bit I want to stay the same is
set as px, but it is acting as though it is set as a %.
Any clues would be appreciated.
TIA.

01-15-2005, 00:00

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote

> So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across this
> site with a width of 550px.
> Leaving half the page totally blank and useless.

The op is talking about *minimum* width, as in the min-width property.

--
Cheers
Richard.

01-15-2005, 00:00

"T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message
news:cs9vjh$rjk$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c5270edff58b5798db6d@news.individual.net ...
> > T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote:
> >> What do most people here consider the most
> >> appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses
> >> for courses?
> >> I currently have my pages set to 650px
> >> Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't
> >> I set a width at all?
> >>
> >
> > You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in
> > which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be
> > widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea
to
> > set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some
Web
> > TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width
> > larger than that.
> >

<body style="font-family:whatever; font-size: 14pt;">

>
> The rest of the page is pretty fluid, but I don't want the top
> panel and top row of links to drop down, so I have the
> min-width set at 650.
> I know this isn't ideal but at that size, when the text is set
> at largest in IE6 it is the narrowest I can get the page without
> the text links dropping on to the next line.
> Also how do I fix the font size when displayed in FireFox?
> There is just one bit I want to fix, but it is re-acting the same
> as all the other text.
>
> The page is at,
> http://www.sim64.co.uk/ordering-roses-online.html
> It's all a bit basic, but I want the top line of text to remain the
> same size, whilst the other is adjustable.
> All other text is set as a % the bit I want to stay the same is
> set as px, but it is acting as though it is set as a %.
> Any clues would be appreciated.
> TIA.

One thing you should avoid using is those | characters for dividers.
The way you have it set up, it's all seen as one string, so when the text is
enlarged by the user, the text drops out of the container.
You might want to put in a table and contain each item in a cell that way.

01-15-2005, 02:00

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
news:em0Gd.118961$K7.96473@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote
>
> > So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across
this
> > site with a width of 550px.
> > Leaving half the page totally blank and useless.
>
> The op is talking about *minimum* width, as in the min-width property.
>

And I was speaking to "Eric Jarvis" who was touting off that web designers
need to design based upon the requirements of webtv users.
I was pointing out to HIM, that his thinking is totally outrageous and pure
nonsense.
Because he used "min-width" does not mean he was speaking of the attribute
as he was speaking more of "screen size width".
Hence, "I cuurently set mine to 650px".

01-15-2005, 04:00

Richard Anonymous@127.001 wrote:
>
> "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:em0Gd.118961$K7.96473@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote
> >
> > > So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across
> > > this site with a width of 550px.
> > > Leaving half the page totally blank and useless.
> >
> > The op is talking about *minimum* width, as in the min-width property.
> >
>
> And I was speaking to "Eric Jarvis" who was touting off that web designers
> need to design based upon the requirements of webtv users.
> I was pointing out to HIM, that his thinking is totally outrageous and pure
> nonsense.
> Because he used "min-width" does not mean he was speaking of the attribute
> as he was speaking more of "screen size width".
> Hence, "I cuurently set mine to 650px".
>

Actually you were mouthing off for no reason at all as far as I can see.

What I stated was that UNLESS THERE IS A REASON FOR IT TO BE LARGER then
it's worth noting that Web TV can only cope with quite narrow fixed and
minimum widths. If you've got something that has a good reason to be there
which requires a larger width then it makes even less sense to cater for
Web TV than it does to cater for Netscape 4 when doing CSS. The ONLY
reason that taking it into account might make any difference to other
users of a site would be if you are one of those second rate graphic
designers who couldn't cut it in the print world and now use a copy of
Dreamweaver to help you pretend that web design is just like print design.
I would like to assume that isn't the case and you've simply misread the
posts.

There are a huge range of extreme ways to view web pages. Some relating to
display size or text size, some to ability to render images or scripts,
some aren't even visual at all. By and large I don't think any of them are
of more than academic interest in terms of the main focus of how a design
works. However there are some that involve accessibility problems. Text to
speech is one, so are the deficiencies of Web TV. So if, as the OP stated,
you are setting a minimum width of 650px, it makes sense to go a little
smaller to cater to Web TV unless there is an overriding reason not to.

I can't see how there is anything there that's even vaguely open to the
merest possibility of being controversial. I can only assume that your
ridiculous over the top response is due to you failing to actually read
what you responded to. I prefer that interpretation to assuming that you
are an aggressive moron.

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

01-14-2005, 18:00	#1 (permalink)
T.J. Civilians	min-width, ideal size? What do most people here consider the most appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses for courses? I currently have my pages set to 650px Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't I set a width at all?

01-14-2005, 23:00	#2 (permalink)
Eric Jarvis Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote: > What do most people here consider the most > appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses > for courses? > I currently have my pages set to 650px > Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't > I set a width at all? > You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea to set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some Web TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width larger than that. -- eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

01-14-2005, 23:00	#3 (permalink)
T.J. Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1c5270edff58b5798db6d@news.individual.net ... > T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote: >> What do most people here consider the most >> appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses >> for courses? >> I currently have my pages set to 650px >> Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't >> I set a width at all? >> > > You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in > which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be > widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea to > set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some Web > TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width > larger than that. > The rest of the page is pretty fluid, but I don't want the top panel and top row of links to drop down, so I have the min-width set at 650. I know this isn't ideal but at that size, when the text is set at largest in IE6 it is the narrowest I can get the page without the text links dropping on to the next line. Also how do I fix the font size when displayed in FireFox? There is just one bit I want to fix, but it is re-acting the same as all the other text. The page is at, http://www.sim64.co.uk/ordering-roses-online.html It's all a bit basic, but I want the top line of text to remain the same size, whilst the other is adjustable. All other text is set as a % the bit I want to stay the same is set as px, but it is acting as though it is set as a %. Any clues would be appreciated. TIA.

01-15-2005, 00:00	#4 (permalink)
rf Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote > So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across this > site with a width of 550px. > Leaving half the page totally blank and useless. The op is talking about minimum width, as in the min-width property. -- Cheers Richard.

01-15-2005, 00:00	#5 (permalink)
Richard Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? "T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote in message news:cs9vjh$rjk$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message > news:MPG.1c5270edff58b5798db6d@news.individual.net ... > > T.J. no1@home.invalid wrote: > >> What do most people here consider the most > >> appropriate min-width to work to, or is it horses > >> for courses? > >> I currently have my pages set to 650px > >> Is this around about the right sort of width, or shouldn't > >> I set a width at all? > >> > > > > You shouldn't set a width unless you have a specific reason to do so, in > > which case you'll know what width you have to set. Web TV tends to be > > widths under 600px with no horizontal scrolling so it's a very bad idea to > > set a minimum much above 550px since you'll be totally excluding some Web > > TV users. Unless, of course, there is an overriding need for a set width > > larger than that. > > <body style="font-family:whatever; font-size: 14pt;"> > > The rest of the page is pretty fluid, but I don't want the top > panel and top row of links to drop down, so I have the > min-width set at 650. > I know this isn't ideal but at that size, when the text is set > at largest in IE6 it is the narrowest I can get the page without > the text links dropping on to the next line. > Also how do I fix the font size when displayed in FireFox? > There is just one bit I want to fix, but it is re-acting the same > as all the other text. > > The page is at, > http://www.sim64.co.uk/ordering-roses-online.html > It's all a bit basic, but I want the top line of text to remain the > same size, whilst the other is adjustable. > All other text is set as a % the bit I want to stay the same is > set as px, but it is acting as though it is set as a %. > Any clues would be appreciated. > TIA. One thing you should avoid using is those \| characters for dividers. The way you have it set up, it's all seen as one string, so when the text is enlarged by the user, the text drops out of the container. You might want to put in a table and contain each item in a cell that way.

01-15-2005, 02:00	#6 (permalink)
Richard Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message news:em0Gd.118961$K7.96473@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote > > > So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across this > > site with a width of 550px. > > Leaving half the page totally blank and useless. > > The op is talking about minimum width, as in the min-width property. > And I was speaking to "Eric Jarvis" who was touting off that web designers need to design based upon the requirements of webtv users. I was pointing out to HIM, that his thinking is totally outrageous and pure nonsense. Because he used "min-width" does not mean he was speaking of the attribute as he was speaking more of "screen size width". Hence, "I cuurently set mine to 650px".

01-15-2005, 04:00	#7 (permalink)
Eric Jarvis Civilians	Re: min-width, ideal size? Richard Anonymous@127.001 wrote: > > "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message > news:em0Gd.118961$K7.96473@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > > "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote > > > > > So the vast MAJORITY of users are set to 1024x768 and they run across > > > this site with a width of 550px. > > > Leaving half the page totally blank and useless. > > > > The op is talking about minimum width, as in the min-width property. > > > > And I was speaking to "Eric Jarvis" who was touting off that web designers > need to design based upon the requirements of webtv users. > I was pointing out to HIM, that his thinking is totally outrageous and pure > nonsense. > Because he used "min-width" does not mean he was speaking of the attribute > as he was speaking more of "screen size width". > Hence, "I cuurently set mine to 650px". > Actually you were mouthing off for no reason at all as far as I can see. What I stated was that UNLESS THERE IS A REASON FOR IT TO BE LARGER then it's worth noting that Web TV can only cope with quite narrow fixed and minimum widths. If you've got something that has a good reason to be there which requires a larger width then it makes even less sense to cater for Web TV than it does to cater for Netscape 4 when doing CSS. The ONLY reason that taking it into account might make any difference to other users of a site would be if you are one of those second rate graphic designers who couldn't cut it in the print world and now use a copy of Dreamweaver to help you pretend that web design is just like print design. I would like to assume that isn't the case and you've simply misread the posts. There are a huge range of extreme ways to view web pages. Some relating to display size or text size, some to ability to render images or scripts, some aren't even visual at all. By and large I don't think any of them are of more than academic interest in terms of the main focus of how a design works. However there are some that involve accessibility problems. Text to speech is one, so are the deficiencies of Web TV. So if, as the OP stated, you are setting a minimum width of 650px, it makes sense to go a little smaller to cater to Web TV unless there is an overriding reason not to. I can't see how there is anything there that's even vaguely open to the merest possibility of being controversial. I can only assume that your ridiculous over the top response is due to you failing to actually read what you responded to. I prefer that interpretation to assuming that you are an aggressive moron. -- eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Babies overfed to meet flawed ideal	Woodmonkey	Health and Fitness	4	04-26-2007 17:12
An Ideal Husband	Snowden	Humor	2	02-05-2005 03:15
ideal world	beth	Microsoft Applications	3	06-16-2004 19:17
pictures, keeping size on width & heigth the same	Brucefl	Microsoft Applications	3	06-16-2004 07:17
Ideal V6 Ground Strap location?	Bob	Automotive	3	06-14-2004 17:41

Community Information
Options
	Contact Us - FAX - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Trackpads - Archive - Top
Trackpads Non-Commercial Ad

Time
	All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:24.
Copyright
	The header is based off of work by Vipixel.com and modified by this site. Trackpads and the Trackpads Logo are both Registered Trademarks of Jason Edwards and cannot be used without prior written permission. The only exception is as a link back to this site. Trackpads is a private website run by a small legion of volunteers, 3 dogs, 12.5 cats and an army of small, super smart, bio-engineered mice with pointy hats and tutu's. Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
Archive Links
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70