960px or 1000px width? Which is...

User 2147473 Photo


Registered User
156 posts

Although this has been discussed in the past I thought I would resurrect the issue. Given that higher screen resolutions are on the rise and becoming more and more commonplace I thought I would repose the question: When using a fixed page width is 960p still the way to go or would 1000p be better even with the typical 1024 res used by a majority of computer users?

Recently, I've read from webdesign authors that 1000p is now the centering standard for fixed page width. Nonetheless, I don't think that by adding 40p extra real estate to a page is making all that much of a difference. It does lend some added area for extended text or breathing room though. Also, at 1000p if you have a textured border that you want slightly visible along the edges for decor sake it doesn't show. 960p therefore, still has some pros. The reason I ask CC and its friendly community is, I'm in the process of redesigning my current website and have already been using the accustomed 960p width but am leaning toward changing over to the 1000p. Before going forward with a decision I thought I get a few extra thoughts on the matter.

Thanks guys! :)
User 187934 Photo


Senior Advisor
20,266 posts

I really don't think it's worth the effort myself for such a small difference.:)
I can't hear what I'm looking at.
It's easy to overlook something you're not looking for.

This is a site I built for my work.(RSD)
http://esmansgreenhouse.com
This is a site I built for use in my job.(HTML Editor)
https://pestlogbook.com
This is my personal site used for testing and as an easy way to share photos.(RLM imported to RSD)
https://ericrohloff.com
User 2733 Photo


Ambassador
426 posts

I always defer to this page.
Let's not get all hurt.
User 2147473 Photo


Registered User
156 posts

Thanks guys. Based on these stats (thanks David), let me ask this then would you think it best to go even wider than 1000p for a fixed width? Say, something more adaptive to a 1280 like a 1200 fixed width? Of course this might alienate the lowest common denominator like those using netbooks, etc. Just a thought.
User 187934 Photo


Senior Advisor
20,266 posts

My notebook is 1600X900 so you won't alienate me.;):)
I can't hear what I'm looking at.
It's easy to overlook something you're not looking for.

This is a site I built for my work.(RSD)
http://esmansgreenhouse.com
This is a site I built for use in my job.(HTML Editor)
https://pestlogbook.com
This is my personal site used for testing and as an easy way to share photos.(RLM imported to RSD)
https://ericrohloff.com
User 122279 Photo


Senior Advisor
14,622 posts
Online Now

Nor me. But I build sites of 1000px width now, because my own stats show that most visitors have that format.
Ha en riktig god dag!
Inger, Norway

My work in progress:
Components for Site Designer and the HTML Editor: https://mock-up.coffeecup.com


User 184085 Photo


Ambassador
1,707 posts

Not wanting to throw a fly in the ointment... well maybe I do :) but just because someone is surfing with a screen resolution of say 1024 X 768 dosen't necesarily mean that is the size of their browser. In short, not everyone browses in full screen.
Volunteering to help :)
http://www.tbaygeek.ca
My HTML play area
http://www.tbaygeek.ca/test/
User 2733 Photo


Ambassador
426 posts

david wilson wrote:
In short, not everyone browses in full screen.


David, do you mean, not everyone uses full screen mode? F11 on Windows with browser menu and status bars hidden?
Let's not get all hurt.
User 184085 Photo


Ambassador
1,707 posts

In this example, my browser is not the full size of my screen, so my stats would report my screen resolution, but not the size of my browser.
Attachments:
Volunteering to help :)
http://www.tbaygeek.ca
My HTML play area
http://www.tbaygeek.ca/test/

Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.