Browsing the web at 1440x900...

[trancejeremy]

I just got a new monitor for my computer, a 1440x900. I've gotten used to it for the desttop and most things, but browsing the web is tricky. While some sites work fine (like here, for the most part), many apparently don't scale, but stay fixed. Which makes them either very hard to read (since they take up 1/3 of the screen) or in some cases, like IGN, they stuff on the right ends up being placed in the middle, obscuring everything.

Any tips? I've tried playing with the increase text size function, but that seems to vary from page to page.

 

[drothgery]

What I do at home (20" Widescreen at 1680 x 1050; it's 1440x900 if I use my laptop's built-in screen instead, but I only do that when travelling) with IE7 is I keep my favorites pinned on the left-hand side (in Firefox, add your bookmarks to the sidebar). Which fills up about a quarter of the screen, and most sites work pretty well in what's left. And it's pretty convenient, too.

 

[azhrei_fje]

When I come across web sites like this I make sure to send a note to the web designer and chastise them for not using floating page layouts.

Yes, it's more work for them. But they're being paid to design the site and this laziness that says it's okay to build a static sized web site galls me. (Okay, maybe it's not that bad. But it is a pet peeve. )

 

[drothgery]

When I come across web sites like this I make sure to send a note to the web designer and chastise them for not using floating page layouts.

Yes, it's more work for them. But they're being paid to design the site and this laziness that says it's okay to build a static sized web site galls me. (Okay, maybe it's not that bad. But it is a pet peeve. )

It's mind-bogglingly difficult to get a dynamically sized site to look good over a wide range of browsers, resolutions, and platforms, especially when said page has to include dynamic content and images, and marketing people -- who are used to working with print layout -- have to think it looks good. So I'm sticking with my staticly sized sites.

 

[ssampier]

I do the same thing, I design a fixed site for convenience and line legibility. If you can afford it, a second monitor -- adjusted to sit portrait--is ideal.

 

[trancejeremy]

I would imagine that it's something that will have to be done for the future, though. I mean, when shopping for monitors, most of them were either widescreen or huge (like 1600x1200). The only ones that seemed suited for 1024x768 or a little higher were the CRT monitors (and those are almost hard to come by these days), and that seems to be the resoultion most "fixed" sites are fixed for.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, monitor resolutions get a big boost these days... I'm sure webdesign will follow eventually.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merkuri]

Yep, monitor resolutions get a big boost these days... I'm sure webdesign will follow eventually.

Eventually is the key word there. Most people are still at 1024x768. They just changed the "norm" to that from 800x600 only a few years ago. You have to design for your lowest common denominator, and that probably won't go up to 1440x900 for a long time.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, that's probably right.

Although, I must say, I have little problems with sites designed for 1024x768 with my 1600x1200 resolution.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Marius Delphus]

I browse the Web on monitors set to either 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 (the monitor I have at work).

It sounds like the OP has maximized the browser to fill the screen... I don't do that... I keep my browsers wide enough to show about 1100 pixels (give or take), and everything looks fine to me.