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

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

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.

Too late - Thinkbroadband, BBC, Ebay, etc have already done it

In reply to a post by Sandgrounder:

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.

Surely if websites/forums such as

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com
http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forums/
www.amazon.co.uk

use fluid width successfully, then why oh why can't TBB use fluid also? perhaps its time for TBB to change its web designers/editors?

I imagine many of the tasks/projects/jobs are not of the paying kind, so what you need are people who not only possess the skills, but also have the willingness to further the community and work for next to no pay (if indeed no pay at all).

They might equally argue that it's time you bought a monitor which rotates to portrait view.

Edited by camieabz (Sun 23-Jan-11 12:30:44)

They all look good on iPad. Why would this be ?

In reply to a post by uno:

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

Matt

Same here, in fact with 2560 x 1440 it's excellent for having 2 windows (or even 2 browsers) viewable at the same time

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

Surely if websites/forums such as

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com
http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forums/
www.amazon.co.uk

use fluid width successfully, then why oh why can't TBB use fluid also?

But those forums (particularly talktalk) don't work successfully. The lines of text are far too long to read easily.

camieabz,

Good idea to rotate the widescreen monitor to portrait view in order to read web pages and word documents etc - however I can never be bothered to do it, tricky with a widescreen laptop also. Much prefer 4:3 screens on laptops because with a widescreen one has to often scroll down before any required content comes into view.

22" and larger widescreens are great for video editing though: more of the content on the timeline, at the same magnification, can be seen. An editing program such as Sony Vegas will automatically adjust the GUI window, when maximized, to fit the screen proportions. And obviously if one is working with 16:9 video content then previewing in full screen is better than on a smaller 4:3 monitor letterboxed.

However I would prefer 22" and larger 4:3 displays but I believe they are quite expensive�

I am glad its kept to small width, what is the point of making it wider? the content doesnt need it.

The only thing that would change is I would have to keep tilting my head left and right to look at the edge's of the screen whilst with it been centered I dont need to do that.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I would have to keep tilting my head left and right to look at the edge's of the screen

It's not compulsory to run a browser in full screen mode...

Blame the manufacturers !
Seems thay have decided we are all going to watch DVD / Video content ALL the time,
and went wholesale for 16:9 widescreens.

This is stupid.
Websites are the oposite, often very long, so computers should stick with 4:3 .

Personally I use 20" 1600x1200 Dell ultra sharp monitor, but I don't think tey are available anymore...
Regards,
Martin

Both my displays are 16:9 (2560x1440 and 1920x1080), but I never run anything except screen savers and videos in full screen on either of them.

I use the extra width to allow me to have two (sometimes more) apps both visible side by side. It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned, I'd have a wrap-around 5:1 display if I could find (and afford!!) one. You can never have too much screen real estate...

Websites are the oposite, often very long, so computers should stick with 4:3 .

On that argument, 3:4 would be better. They used to be available (maybe still are, not sure), but they never caught on so the public would seem to disagree with you.

And actually, scrolling down to read a long web page is no hardship, it's essentially what we do when we are reading printed material. Having to scroll left to right and back again if you haven't got the width is a king-sized pita

Edited by billford (Tue 25-Jan-11 23:52:21)

Not all of them... you can still get non-widescreen monitors.

Matt

In reply to a post by billford:

On that argument, 3:4 would be better. They used to be available (maybe still are, not sure), but they never caught on so the public would seem to disagree with you.

Just turn your widescreen monitor on its side.

In reply to a post by gomezz:

Just turn your widescreen monitor on its side.

Drivers... and not too easy with a 27" iMac

Hmm... I've just discovered that my second display has options for various (orthogonal) rotations; it's on a VESA wall mount so I might have a play with that

That's a screenie of my new 24" 16:10 showing a doc in two page mode. 1920 x 1200. It's starting to grow on me, this wide screen.

www.camieabz.co.uk/twopage.jpg

In reply to a post by camieabz:

It's starting to grow on me, this wide screen.

Like I said, scrolling vertically is something we're accustomed to doing in normal reading, scrolling horizontally isn't.

Other things being equal, I'd go for width over height any time.

Societies whose writing is top to bottom would see it the other way around of course.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I would have to keep tilting my head left and right to look at the edge's of the screen

It's not compulsory to run a browser in full screen mode...

its how I run mine tho, but if I were to run it windowed I would instead be presented with a scroll bar to move to the left and right edges.

Sounds like you have a browser set up problem if that is happening.