Viewing webpages on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor

Hi
Recently bought an 24" Apple LED Cinema display screen to use with my Win 7 pc. It has a 16:10 ratio and has a resolution of 1920x1200 (currently set). The problem is when viewing some websites (including TBB), i get large spaces on the sides. Yet on my 15.4" Sony laptop also 16:10 aspect ratio, the spaces on the sides occupy a lesser area. The sony has a resolution of 1280x800. Is this supposed to be normal? FYI the resolution is correctly set on both pc's. On the screenshots below TBB and BBC news have large black spaces at the sides yet MSE and Amazon websites are displayed correctly:

24" screen - 16:10 (1920x1200)
http://img718.imageshack.us/i/24tbb.jpg/
http://img830.imageshack.us/i/24bbcnews.jpg/
http://img163.imageshack.us/i/24mse.jpg/
http://img262.imageshack.us/i/24amazon.jpg/

15.4" screen - 16:10 (1280x800)
http://img232.imageshack.us/i/sonytbb.jpg/
http://img8.imageshack.us/i/sonybbc.jpg/
http://img62.imageshack.us/i/sonymse.jpg/
http://img35.imageshack.us/i/sonyamazon.jpg/

Cheers

This is to be expected. BBC and TBB used fixed-width pages, so the layout of content will appear the same in most browsers.

Amazon and MSE use fluid width, so people with bigger res can either see more (Amazon) on one page, or read more content (MSE forums) compared to smaller screens.

Matt

In reply to a post by uno:

This is to be expected. BBC and TBB used fixed-width pages, so the layout of content will appear the same in most browsers.

Amazon and MSE use fluid width, so people with bigger res can either see more (Amazon) on one page, or read more content (MSE forums) compared to smaller screens.

Matt

Thanks Matt, but why don't all websites use fluid width?

Because generally, they'd look horrible.

If TBB was fluid, it would look worse than you see now on the 24" screen. Same with BBC news.

I have a 27" iMac and never browse full screen, so does not really bother me

Matt

Screenshot of TBB, with dark areas coloured for effect.

www.camieabz.co.uk/screen.jpg

1920 x 1200 here.

Some sites have a fixed width (usually at a size between 960px and 1000px) to ensure that 1024 x 768 resolutions do not require horizontal scrolling.

Some have a percentage width (fluid), such as 90%, 99%, or 100%, and the page should resize accordingly, but there are big drabacks with that aesthetically. FIxed width images (banners, and other horizontal layout images) don't tend to resize, so designers have to decide to have them or not. Portions of text that take up a typical paragraph size on 1280 x 1024 will be far wider, and thus shorter. If you type in 1024 x 768, then re-size to 1920 x 1200, your paragraph might be a couple of lines.

There's also a third way, which is a bit of a hybrid. Have a fliud width, but declare a maximum width. Again, it's not too friendly with fixed images, but less unfriendly than pure fluid when it comes to text. You might have the site designed to be 100% width (styling it on 1024 x 768), but set a maximum of 1260, to allow for the 1280 x 1024 resolution. The layout wouldn't suffer too much.

Wide screen monitors are not designed for webpage viewing. They are primarily for films & games. I myself pondered long an hard on this. Get a 19" 'square' monitor and have a similar screen to my old one, go for a 20" square and pay £300+ for an extra inch of diagonal. Or go wide screen. I went for 16:10, as it's the best of the wide aspects.

The forum width is no different than with the 19" screen I had. I have more vertical view, so less scrolling. If I watch a DVD, I tend to have a great experience. Games are similar. MS Apps, such as Word or Excel are good too, as there's far more screen area for two apps side by side or one massive one if necessary.

All in all, I would rather have had something a little less wide. 16:11 or 4:3, but you get used to it.

Edited by camieabz (Sun 23-Jan-11 10:52:09)

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Wide screen monitors are not designed for webpage viewing.

Which is unfortunate as all Netbooks are wide screen

Trying to create websites which work properly on Netbooks is a pain

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

..... but why don't all websites use fluid width?

These forums would be awful to view with fluid width on large widescreen monitors.

The width of the text would be so large that you would lose the plot when trying to scan back to the start of the next line.

TBH, it probably far easier to have two parallel sites. One at 4:3 and one at 6:10/9 and set the widths according to real market demand. It would be easy enough if the site isn't constantly changing. It's too easy to just decide to set it at 1260 and 'force' the 1024 x 768 users to upgrade.

They haven't upgraded for good reasons. Most likely budgetary ones. Then there's mobile Internet too. Sigh.

"These forums would be awful to view with fluid width on large widescreen monitors."

Gee, what a shame no one's thought of a way for the browser not to fill the whole screen. Maybe I could do that and patent it

In reply to a post by camieabz:

.... probably far easier to have two parallel sites.

Twice as much work.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

.... and force the 1024 x 768 users to upgrade.

I have just bought a new Netbook and it is 'wider' than that at 1024 x 600