Standard Page Width?

What's the best page width these days considering different users with various resolutions, browsers etc? Is there a current standard? I just changed to 800 on ObsessionFitness.com up from the template default of 788. Thanks.

 

I use a fluid width for most things, ae: 100%

 

I use to use 760 on most of my stuff years ago, but have increased over time. A lot of the big name sites have an auto detect of the viewers screen reso and have the width set on that.

 

I go with 750px widths for my minimum level of support. That way, a printer can print the whole page without requiring a special printer stylesheet (which is still a good thing to have, since you can also remove the menu, advertising and other pointless stuff, format the links so they appear next to the anchor text,and so forth).

 

A fluid width is the best solution most of the time but I use 800px for most of my sites, although some people say that 1024px should be the "new standard"...

 

I am using 780 Px for the standard resolution (1024x764) and 970 Px for the higher resolution.

 

Actually I'd go with an elastic constrained-width layout whenever possible. That way those with really large monitors don't get stuck having to constantly turn their heads from side to side as they read, and those with lower resolutions still get to read the main content, even if the sidebar (assuming a sidebar exists on the right side) gets pushed off to the side or dropped below the content (via a float drop).

While the example I'm about to show doesn't have a min/max width applied, if I were to do so, it would be set to a minimum of 750px and a maximum of 1150px (I have been thinking of going a bit higher than that though). Note that even at "800x600" the four (yes, FOUR) columns still render nicely without scrunching up the main content area.

http://www.dan-schulz.com/temp/4columnlayout/

 

760 and if you want it all to fit in the first screen no scrolling at all for most users I would go with 700 by 500 The reason for this is most standards are still 800x600 screen size so chop a bit off the sides to make it look like boarder wise so about 750 to 700 and then you need to cut off quite a bit of the 600 you have the address bar at the top to consider and then your standard windows tool bar. Normal about 100 to 150 pixels.

 

Signed, Dan Schulz a.k.a. the Boogeyman.

 

Actually I'm more like the Big Bad Wolf. But that's another story for another time (and yes, I can blow down brick houses - just look around the SEO board and you'll see me doing it all the time ).

 

800px-1024px

 

It depends... I prefer fluid desing the most (usually about 70% of monitor width) but I often get into situations when I have to use fixed width - then I use 750px but lately I started using 880px more - realy 95% of people already has minimum of 1024x768 resolution...

 

When I design, I normally just make the background 1000px, and then design inside the box. I don't have a set size to use, I just do what looks good.

Also, fluid width = problem solved.

 

There is no point in switching from 788 to 800 - at 788, at least people with an 800 screen res can see it without scrolling. By moving it to 800 you still keep it much narrower than a 1024, and all you're adding is a scroll bar to 800 width screens.

The limited-width fluid option Dan mentioned is definitely the best way to go, for 800 screens, printers, and people with widescreen monitors at 1680 resolution, so the whole page doesn't get over-stretched.

 

1003px This is the standard

 

Although I have no clue what elastic constrained-width is, I believe layouts of this type should always be used, as there's no reason not to make the main content flexible for users with different monitor sizes. Fixing width only means small content for big res and horizontal scrolling for smaller res.

However the one problem I have come across with making the Content like this is if we are using embeddable media it cannot be re-sizied with the page. Unless somebody knows otherwise? For example a Youtube Video? Could this be resized with the page?

 

you can't make every site fluid. it just doesn't fix every design.

most users have at least 1024px width on their monitors now-a-days. Some still have 800px wide but those numbers are shrinking. The majority of users are 1024px +.

 

I'm not sure about Youtube but you can certainly make embedded flash video content resizeable with a percentage width & height.

 

I use 800 and 970

 

(please see the reply to the quotation directly below)

Are you both so sure of that? If so, I strongly suggest you two read The Definitive FAQ on Screen Resolution [link: sitepoint.com] by Simon Pieters.

It's an elastic layout built with a combination of a percentage on the body selector and EM for the containers constrained by a minimum and maximum width using the min-width and max-width CSS properties.

The point is to resize the containers, not the content (except text). Things like images and YouTube videos should respect their pixel size measurements. In your case, float the element containing the YouTube video (I normally use the Flash Satay method of embedding Flash files - even YouTube videos) and let the content flow around it.