Site Width

By Deane Barker on December 5, 2005

Sites are getting bigger. First, The Onion redesigns and goes to 950-some-odd pixels wide. This morning, I notice that CNN is bigger too — their content stretches 880 pixels from the left margin now. I don’t know what it was before, but I’m willing to bet it was a full 100-pixels narrower.

Problem is, I have all my bookmarks in a sidebar which eats up some screen area, so I scroll horizontally on The Onion, and I’m close on CNN.

It strikes me that CNN should be something of a barometer here — if they do it, can everyone else be far behind?

Gadgetopia

Comments

  1. Or, you could not be a dumbass when desining sites and make them flow with the width of the browser properly. I am fine if you put a minimum width of like 600px as making a fully flowable design is quite hard, but not making it cope otherwise is just plain lazy.

  2. I’m with bond; just go buy yourself a nice widescreen flat panel (we all know you want it) then tell your wife she doesn’t need to worry about getting you anything for Christmas (it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.)

  3. Or, you could not be a dumbass when desining sites and make them flow with the width of the browser properly.

    Then both CNN and The Onion are dumbasses, because the designs don’t flow.

    And, while I agree with you in theory, doing this perfectly in practice and still getting the results you client wants is not as easy as just “not being a dumbass.”

  4. I asked this on another post over the weekend, but I’m still waiting to see the analysis results of the screen caps that we submitted to you. What kind of info did you find out?

    As a completely unrelated aside: Those blue and green faces on the WebEx ads are really starting to turn me off.

Comments are closed. If you have something you really want to say, email editors@gadgetopia.com and we‘ll get it added for you.