Hassan wrote: > ?! I've been involved with web applications that needed all the real estate > possible to effectively show a spreadsheet-like data table, and even then > some compromises were required. In this very special case your application design would have to be defined by the nature of the content as opposed to eventual form factor — you would have to settle for horizontal scroll bars even on the widest resolutions depending on the data at hand. I'm not suggesting you wrap everything in a 960px wrapper with overflow hidden, or that the tables you'd be dealing with face a max-width:960px imposition — however if your interface layout (including the data view and any other necessary modules such as navigation, filters, editing tools, etc) requires more than 1024px, you're still in trouble. I imagine you went with something whereby you have page elements hugging the left and right of the viewport, with the data occupying whatever space remained? Viggie wrote: > My default for layouts was 960px but now I'm ok with slightly > larger layouts but not more than 1200px. And we should also > consider netbooks with 12inch monitors. This is what I mean: even on my Mum's 24-inch, 1920x1200 Mac, I honestly wouldn't want to have a layout wider than 1020px. People don't get screens that wide so that applications can fill the whole thing, they do it for having several applications show at once. When you get bigger than 1020px, you get to the point where the eye has to move to be able to take in the whole thing. At this point, you're forcing mental redraws by the user, which makes it difficult work to digest the import of the whole site quickly. When my Mum first got the thing she felt it was natural to make applications this big, but it got to the stage where she would literally have to move her head and spend seconds on end finding application functions. If you're using all of that to convey regular page content, you're not talking about a casual read — you're making it an invested effort. Regards, Barney Carroll barney.carroll at gmail.com 07594 506 381 On 21 May 2010 05:24, David Laakso <david at chelseacreekstudio.com> wrote: > Viggie wrote: >> >> On screen resolution of 1440 or above, I tend to have browsers at around >> 1000px. The only windows that were full screen on my desktops were >> editors that have lots of side boxes on either side. I guess many >> others were also doing the same (not keeping browsers full screen). >> My default for layouts was 960px but now I'm ok with slightly larger >> layouts but not more than 1200px. And we should also consider >> netbooks with 12inch monitors. >> >> -Viggie >> > > > > > > Okay. For sure. Sounds good to me. > <http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/veggie.png> > ~d > > > > > -- > desktop > http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ > > > -- > > * * Please support the community that supports you. * * > http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > > For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester > and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org > Workers of the Web, evolt !