What size should my webpage width be

There is no official "standard"... That I know of...

 

Thank you buzza_gts!! That's really cool. I'm going to check it out.

 

Workingsmart, that's where i get confused. I've read some people say there is a "standard". now i'm scratching my head I will still account for my audience and most common usage and play with what works best, but i'm still curious about this "standard" size.

Creativewebmaster, you said as per the web 2.0 Standard web page width should be around 960px width.
Can you tell me where to find that info? I'm searching with no luck Sorry if this is a very stupid question.

 

Again, there is no official standard, only standard practices that ensure usability for all. Search all you want, you will not find any written or official stance on the position of "standard" of page width.

There will never be an official standard as that would force device manufacturers to be constrained by a "standard". Because of the varying amount of screen sizes, devices and other variables the choice of fixed width / fluid and or those based on Media queries will be up to the developer or director ( owner, client or other entity in control ) of the particular project, site, app... etc..

 

Thanks Workingsmart! That helps a lot. I will work forward with standard practices and what is needed per project/client/audience etc., - not necessarily a set web 2.0 standard width. That word "standard" just made me nervous I was about to embark on bad territory with changing my width styling.

Thanks everyone!

 

use 1024px width for your website.

 

I normally design for 1024, unless the client requests otherwise.

 

1024 is the standard all over the world right now ...

 

they are referring to the 960px grid its not a w3c thing and not necessarily consortium standard but I do think it's a great system to learn and use for your layouts its very accessible and extensible.

 

also fairly easy to utilize especially if you are building box model stuff!

 

960px is used because it's the best compromise in terms of using up screen space and being flexible for different numbers of columns. The main reason it caught on is because of the 960gs grid system and if you're not using a grid you're probably not making great websites.

It's now reaching the point where you shouldn't be thinking about how wide to fix the layout it's more about making a responsive layout which will work at any width (anywhere from 320px-1920px+). This is because while for years screen resolutions were increasing we now have to consider mobile devices, netbooks etc.

 

AtomLee,
I feel stupid to say this, but I never learned web design on the 960 grid system. Maybe I should.

 

I always use dreamweaver and as a rule every site i always start with a 960 wrapper centred.I know many people still using old monitors so this always sticks in the back of my mind

 

"fixing" the width of a website is some of the biggest idiocies this side of the nimrods who draw pretty pictures in photoshop then have the giant brass monkey balls to call themselves web designers. Given the plethora of screen resolutions ranging from 128px wide phones to 2560x2048 desktops simply choosing a resolution be it 752, 960, 976 -- is basically going to alienate SOMEBODY.

Hell, I run a 1920 display and most of the time you're typical 960 wide fixed width sites are too big without horizontal scrolling because I only run the browser at half display width... Should I hit maximize I end up with a crappy little stripe on my desktop -- and such sites are completely useless on my netbook! Which is why I'll usually not even let such pages finish loading and go to some site that wasn't slapped together by someone too lazy to build a site properly.

max-width is a great idea -- excessively long lines of text can be hard to read. A better idea is to add some 'switchy' scripting assistance to adjust the layout accordingly for desktop screen widths -- and even BETTER idea is to start using CSS3 media queries to craft the layout even further for use on just about anything.

After all, if you're designing OR coding a website, your JOB is to deliver CONTENT to PEOPLE -- not to stroke the dipshit graphic designers ego with their "but I can do it in photoshop" nonsense. Harsh truth: People visit websites for the content -- NOT the goofy graphics you hang on it... simple accessible navigation with a page that adjusts to the visitors needs -- anyone points you at anything else, they're packing you so full of sand you should change your name to Sahara.

 

Thanks everyone for the great information.

Thanks deathshadow
"max-width is a great idea -- excessively long lines of text can be hard to read. A better idea is to add some 'switchy' scripting assistance to adjust the layout accordingly for desktop screen widths -- and even BETTER idea is to start using CSS3 media queries to craft the layout even further for use on just about anything."
That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for. I got back into building websites last year and a lot has changed. I appreciate this kind of information.

 

It needs to fit other peoples browsers. Most people still use 800X600 even though video is so much better now. Say you write it with your resolution set at 1280x720. Someone with theirs set at 800x600 will have to scroll up and sideways to see it all . Alot of designers write it in several different resolutions and theres a plugin that checks the recipients resolution and uploads that set of pages to them

 

You don't necessarily need to use 960gs but using some kind of grid to organise content is essential to creating usable and well structured sites.

 

BULLCOOKIES. Especially if working with fluid layouts. Grids are for two extremes of web design -- people who micromanage everything manually declaring widths on everything for no good reason overthinking every single layout element... or those who much like a 1992 Barbie Doll go "Math is hard".

Well, assuming you mean pre-calculated grids, and not simply that pages tend to be broken into sections.

Though really the problem with things like 960 grid system has nothing to do with the math, but to do with it being a CSS framework... Which much like that OOCSS nonsense means it relies upon presentational class names -- at which point you might as well go back to using presentational markup HTML 3.2 style... Though with all the people vomiting up 1998 style HTML 3.2 and either slapping a Tranny or 5 doctype on it...

 

Yes i agree that 1024 is ideal width for your site but it have scroll area in your web page and user don't link horizontal scrolling. so that 990 is best in my opinion.