The unused space on really big monitors isn’t really a bad thing. It just focuses the user on the content a little more.

I hear you. In that link I posted, I concede that fixed layouts seem easier. I think one thing I probably didn’t explain well was that if something like accessibility (and therefore text resizing) needs to be considered, then the total time may even out, or even work in favor of elastic layouts, as such considerations would have gone into the initial development, rather than be attempted later.

I accept it is not initially easy but I as a web professional myself, I do admittedly find that over time it becomes fairly natural and quick to do. Oversimplified, where one thinks of pixels, use em values. I think the key is to stick to web standards, and standards-compliant (X)HTML. Otherwise problems (with IE in particular) are far too many.

Even if a client were to request a site to fit into 800×600, I would use em dimensions that fit into those requirements (of course discussing with the client the implication for resizing).

My blog for example is just spare time stuff, the main theme (including the images) I did in about 14 hours. And that was also because I was learning how to use Word Press at the same time. The CSS bit was a LOT less but I do concede that the background images etc take a little bit longer because you need to consider how the images work when text size is changed.

I would hope therefore that web designers on a budget (I consider myself a developers, as opposed to a designer, for example!) are not too put off by it, then!

Of course, elastic isn’t for all situations, either, but a useful tool to have in the box, so to speak.

RT the fitness guy: you asked why anyone would use elastic, for it causes all sorts of problems? The main reason is for some basic accessibility and design flexibility: i.e. allow people to resize your web site while minimizing distortions to your layout, and seeing text overlapping. It also helps overcome the limitations and problems of fixed layouts. See the link I mentioned in my previous comment.

The answer is simply: if you have something else to do with it (like another column, sidebars, call-outs, graphics, or whatever), then use it for that. Otherwise, just use it as spacing. (Sometimes I use it well, sometimes I just don’t care much, like on my personal pages at the moment.)

Flooding the main content out to 900px or so is usually bad design, particularly with regular small-ish fonts – it just makes the lines too long, too hard to read and bugs the hell out of readers on a small screen. I think readers will then either switch your styling off (View->Page Style->No Style) if the content is valuable enough (how I view problogger still!) or click off your site quickly.

DPeach – blog stats are unreliable. Blog stats reports of viewport size are *very* unreliable. Beware.

I have written an article about this before over at:
http://germworks.net/blog/2007/06/04/what-screen-size-to-use-in-web-design/

With my wide screen LCD, I seldom maximize my browser fully, though; the width allows me to see other windows underneath the browser.

One of my pet peeves, though, is a fixed width that’s super narrow. It makes me want to poke out my eyes.

I don’t know what resolution most laptop power users go for, but I think it’s good to at least remember that not everyone will be using a desktop and have a huge monitor.

Sly – Thanks!

Yikes! This is sad. I just looked at my blog stats for my main blog. 37% of my readers have 800 X 600 displays. Horrible! I was hoping that would be more like 5%. That is the largest percentage with 1024 X 768 coming in second with 26%.

Chuck – Agreed. Fluid width can be near impossible to make some design elements work for.

Anup – Your blog is a great example of an elastic layout done well. With that said, you will have spent a lot longer getting that right, which isn’t always an option to web designers on a budget.

Matt – If you ever get a chance to view your site in a really large monitor, take it. You’ll see why a max width can be just as important as a min one. :)

MJ Ray – If the content area is limited to 500 px, what do you do with the other 1000px that will be there on larger resolutions? It sounds quite like a fixed width layout, but liquid in the lower extremes (Which is fine in most cases. :) ).

Ankesh – People are certainly used to that, with a huge number of layouts (Blogs in particular) still being made for 800px browsers. However, when you look at that on a larger browser, it can be almost wasteful to see that the blog is only taking up 1/3 of your screen’s width. :(

Carol – We do read from left to right in print (In the Western world at least), but does this always apply to a webpage? Reading left to write only implies what the first thing you see will be, it does not imply where the first thing that will catch your attention will be. In my opinion, effective ad placements are wherever your reader has paused to look on the webpage.

e.g. If they have just read an article, an effective placement is right at the end of that article. If they are looking to navigate, effective placement is near your category list etc.

And from a reader perspective, are the adverts the first thing you want a reader to see on your blog? You may be better in the long-term to have them finding article headlines first (Getting them to read).

MMM – Just how stats should be used. Well done.

Dave – That could well be true, but could you define general web stats? The first result in Google for “browser stats” is a tech-related site. Being geared towards techy people, won’t it be skewed to higher resolutions and modern browsers? But is any other site’s stats more relevant?

For instance, that site says that in July, 14% were still on 800×600. After the 2 weeks of my blog, my own stats told me that 0.5% of my readers had been on 800×600. Did I not make the right decision then, by making a better layout for the very vast majority of my users?

As for mobile devices, things get a lot more complicated there. It’s not so much about building a gracefully degrading site, as much as it is about changing the layout entirely. (Think of the iphone-optimised sites. The fundamental layouts are usually very different to the real websites).

David – Thanks, that means a lot to me! If I could build a blog half as useful as yours has been to me, I would be more than happy. :D

It’s no surprise to see your content here on Problogger. I think you’re destined for great things with your knowledge and writing.

Long may you continue!

This advice sounds fine, but in my opinion is completely the wrong way to work for the majority of people.

Your existing stats will only tell you what your existing users are using. If your existing site doesn’t work on 800 by 600, people with 800 by 600 resolutions won’t visit more than once, won’t link to and won’t recommend your site. Your stats will show a larger percentage of other resolutions as a result.

It also dismally fails to account for change. Small screens are becoming more widely used (Wii, mobile), and the use of larger monitors seems to be increasing the proportion of people who don’t browse at full-screen.

“perfect the page for the majority” – I agree on this point. Make sure the site is consistent for major browsers and common resolutions (using general web stats, not your own stats – or if you have to use your own stats, using new visitors only). But importantly, ensure it degrades gracefully when someone with a different browser or resolution visits.

On the other hand, my Arabic blog, which attracts a different group of readers mostly from the Middle East, it is optimized for people using the 800×600, with the decision also based on the blog’s stats.