Your browsing habits?

So I've been working on my layout and one thing that's been bugging me is that on my widescreen monitor with my browser window open and maximised, I have a ton of unused space on each side of my forum pages. Currently I have my site set to 980 pixels max width and responsive.

It never really occurred to me before why so many sites have this 980 max width but after learning some web stuff over the last month or so I realise it is to support the lowest common denominator with today's most used resolutions. I some times come across sites where no max width has been specified and it's set to full responsive, so the site stretches right out across the screen. For Xenforo's layout it's less than ideal as the forum list tends to float over to the very left and the side bar to the very right with a large blank space in the middle of the main viewing area.

I thought about this for a while and then realised a few days ago that its probably my browsing habits that are very different from everyone else's. I tend to use my browser with the window maximised the majority of the time. If I switch this to normal mode then the condensed view squashes the site back into a more readable form.

So is everyone else in the world generally using this approach and it's me that been making use of a bad habit all these years?

 

Google Analytics will tell you what res people usually view your site at. There are pro's and con's to fixed vs. fluid.

Fixed is more conformed, and also (usually) A LOT easier to design for as you can place things how you want and you know they won't move. The drawback is, as you said, the empty space on a huge monitor.

Fluid or responsive is nice if done right. You can do responsive AND ALSO set a max width that may help contend with your empty center area a bit. You are on the right track with noticing what you have so far, a little more googlin' and you will understand better the design options you have.

As far as >my< habits, I have big monitors but usually only have my browser window sized to about 1000px wide.

 

Actually a responsive layout should do the trick, but maybe is the size you are using.

Most of the responsible layouts and grids I have seen and worked on have a 960 pixel width. You say to be using 980px, what means you are exceeding 20 pixels compared with the traditional setting starting with the introuduction to Twitter's bootstrap layout.

Other than responsive, I would try a fluid layout instead, set totally in percentages if the fix of reducing 20 pixels to your actual layout does not work.

I have never liked fixed layouts because of the variety of monitor and display sizes, so using a fixed layout will force you to have a second mobile version at a time.

 

Mine is currently set to responsive but it uses a max-width setting, basically set up the same way as Admin-Talk.

Before I understood the differences I had wanted to change my layout to a 3 column design style with a left and right sidebar but in order to achieve that without having to squash everything into 960 - 980 it needs at least 1100 - 1200px.

On my wide monitor that's no problem and looks great but I've realised the presentation is non-optimal for the narrower views.

So I was then thinking about a dual style. Like a widescreen specific style and a narrow one but I think perhaps the majority of wide screen guys are browsing with a normalised browser window. So maybe it's just not worth the time in any case.

 

Yes, most of us with modern computers, monitors or display can see websites within a range of 1200 and 1900 pixel width at least, so I don't think you have too much trouble with the average surfer that will visualize your site correctly without getting the layout broken, having to scroll horizontally or sections overlapping, which are the most commonly problems that people with lower resolution may have.

Only problem I see is to knowing if your layout is really responsive when it comes to mobile devices, but there is always the option to make a small fix or mobile version if necessary.

 

Just out of curiosity what's the min resolution your site suppport? I know today two very common horizontal resolutions are 1440 and 1280 but I know a couple of people that still have screens with a resolution no bigger than 1024. That's why going with a max resolution of 960px is the safest option.

 

I converted the theme on one of my sites to be full width responsive, but I didn't like it. It was fine on my smaller laptop screen, but reading across 95% of the wide screen monitor was awkward. I kept the responsiveness and reduced the max width or wide screens - this made it much easier to read.