If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CNET Wideboys

dahamsta · 2005-10-06 03:28:30

I was wondering why News.com was a bit wonky earlier this evening, turns out they were switching to a new, wider format with a minimum screen width of 1024px. And it ain't dynamic either, if you're on a lower resolution you get the scrummy horizontal scrollbars. Apart from liquid designs I may not have noticed, they're the…

Options

06-10-2005 4:28am

#1

dahamsta

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2000

Posts: 15270

I was wondering why News.com was a bit wonky earlier this evening, turns out they were switching to a new, wider format with a minimum screen width of 1024px. And it ain't dynamic either, if you're on a lower resolution you get the scrummy horizontal scrollbars. Apart from liquid designs I may not have noticed, they're the first major site I've seen go down this route.

http://cnet.com/
http://news.com/

I still try to cater for users with 800px, what about you guys? Is it time to take it, uh, out a notch?

1

Comments

Options
#2 06-10-2005 11:20am
Serbian

Registered Users Posts: 2,157 ✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2000

Posts: 2000

While there does seem to be a large number of people still using 800x600 or lower (around 25% depending on the source you choose to believe), I would imagine that they tracked screen resolution on their site over a few months and decided that the percentage of users using 1024x768 or greater was high enough to justify pushing up the site width.

0