By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,950 Members | 1,032 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,950 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

What is your all around site CSS width property set at?

P: n/a
Hi

I hear to set the css width property at 774px which is good for all
resolutions. What are you using?

Thanks a lot

Patrick

Oct 22 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
16 Replies


P: n/a
varois83 wrote:
I hear to set the css width property at 774px which is good for all
resolutions.
Doesn't work on my PDA, and with my large display, you waste a lot of
screen space.
What are you using?
Nothing. Think flexible.

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Oct 22 '06 #2

P: n/a
"varois83" <va******@netzero.netwrites:
I hear to set the css width property at 774px which is good for all
resolutions.
You heard wrong.
What are you using?
No hard-coded width at all. That *is* good for any resolution.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 22 '06 #3

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
No hard-coded width at all. That *is* good for any resolution.
Agreed, however, it can be good to set a max-width (in ems, of course)
to prevent overly long lines of text. 35em for paragraphs is usually a
good max. A multi-column layout would be wider.

px is never a good unit for page width unless the content is all
graphics, which probably raises another batch of issues.

--
Berg
Oct 22 '06 #4

P: n/a

Thanks

Pat

Oct 23 '06 #5

P: n/a

Bergamot wrote:
Sherm Pendley wrote:

No hard-coded width at all. That *is* good for any resolution.

Agreed, however, it can be good to set a max-width (in ems, of course)
to prevent overly long lines of text.
No, never. There's never any need to set "all around site width".

If you have a column of text in there, then set max-width on that (in
ems) so as to limit the longest line length. But set it on the _column_
where the text is, not the overall page.

Oct 23 '06 #6

P: n/a
varois83 wrote:
Hi

I hear to set the css width property at 774px which is good for all
resolutions. What are you using?

Thanks a lot

Patrick
At 744 pixels wide, I will have to scroll a few screen widths on my handheld
in order to read each line. I hate having to do that. Also at 744 pixels
wide, I will have about a 400 pixel wide margin in my normal viewport. I
hate having to scroll vertically, when I have all that unused white space.

Set the width at either what pleases you, or let it flow to fill the users
viewports. The choice is yours, however I am more likely to stay and visit
your site if it flows.

Carolyn
--
Carolyn Marenger

Oct 23 '06 #7

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
If you have a column of text in there, then set max-width on that (in
ems) so as to limit the longest line length. But set it on the _column_
where the text is, not the overall page.
If you have 2 columns of text, what's wrong with setting an overall page
width in ems to limit both columns in one shot? If you do that, you can
center the page horizontally so it looks nicer. If you only constrain
paragraph or individual column widths, you end up with unbalanced empty
space that looks weird in larger windows.

--
Berg
Oct 23 '06 #8

P: n/a
Bergamot wrote:
>
If you have 2 columns of text, what's wrong with setting an overall page
width in ems
Make that max-width, not width.

--
Berg
Oct 24 '06 #9

P: n/a
In article <4q************@individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
If you only constrain
paragraph or individual column widths, you end up with unbalanced empty
space that looks weird in larger windows.
Give a url example.

--
dorayme
Oct 24 '06 #10

P: n/a
dorayme wrote:
In article <4q************@individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
> If you only constrain
paragraph or individual column widths, you end up with unbalanced empty
space that looks weird in larger windows.

Give a url example.
Perhaps Mr Dingley can provide one, if that is how he usually designs
things. If not, it should be easy enough to make a test case yourself.
With a 2-column layout, you'd likely end up with either a big hole in
the middle of the page, or on one side.

--
Berg
Oct 24 '06 #11

P: n/a
In article <4q************@individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
Perhaps Mr Dingley can provide one, if that is how he usually designs
things. If not, it should be easy enough to make a test case yourself.
With a 2-column layout, you'd likely end up with either a big hole in
the middle of the page, or on one side.
This is exactly what I want to know, if it is to the side then
what is wrong with that? There seems to be this stupid idea going
around that is similar to the idea that nature abhors vacuums. I
mean, if there is nothing to say or put somewhere it is silly to
pretend otherwise on a website.

Look, Bergomot, i am not criticising you, have forgotten details
of thread. But the point is that it is important where empty
spaces are. All voids are not aesthetically equivalent.

--
dorayme
Oct 24 '06 #12

P: n/a

Bergamot wrote:
If you have 2 columns of text, what's wrong with setting an overall page
width in ems to limit both columns in one shot?
If you have 2 columns of text and want to constrain the overall width
of the pair, then wrap the pair in a <divand constrain the width of
that. That's still not constraining the page width though.

You can't constrain page width -- that's set by the browser window and
you're stuck with it. So find the thing you do want to control, control
that, and manage the placement of this thing within your overall page.
If you try to control the _page_ then you run into an ugly situation
when the page is wider than you want and there's a "no man's land"
situation off to the side of it where you've let the bare canvas show
through and it's no longer under such good or detailed control by your
CSS.

Oct 24 '06 #13

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
If you have 2 columns of text and want to constrain the overall width
of the pair, then wrap the pair in a <divand constrain the width of
that.
Ah, now I see. We were talking about the same thing really. I do agree
about *never* setting a max-width on the body or html element. I've seen
IE do weird things with that, or with margins on body. They seem like
illogical things to do, anyway.
That's still not constraining the page width though.
But what you said is what I meant, anyway. :)

cheers

--
Berg
Oct 24 '06 #14

P: n/a
Dear all,

Does everybody agree with Berg's statement that the use of margins in
body should be avoided?

I do use it often without problems.

br

Johan
www.web-garden.be

Bergamot wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:

If you have 2 columns of text and want to constrain the overall width
of the pair, then wrap the pair in a <divand constrain the width of
that.

Ah, now I see. We were talking about the same thing really. I do agree
about *never* setting a max-width on the body or html element. I've seen
IE do weird things with that, or with margins on body. They seem like
illogical things to do, anyway.
That's still not constraining the page width though.

But what you said is what I meant, anyway. :)

cheers

--
Berg
Oct 25 '06 #15

P: n/a
varois83 wrote :
Hi

I hear to set the css width property at 774px which is good for all
resolutions. What are you using?
I use
width: auto
so that block-level elements take as much horizontally as they can from
their parent element, and this, regardless of their user agent viewport,
regardless of their resizing of the window viewport.

What you heard is very wrong: it creates a rigid, inflexible webpage design.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Oct 27 '06 #16

P: n/a
Thanks caroline and Gerard

Very helpfull

Patrick

Oct 29 '06 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.