<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How wide should your site be?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/</link>
	<description>Fixed price, low cost web design and hosting based in Harrogate, North Yorkshire</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:24:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Icon de RSS</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-1478</link>
		<dc:creator>Icon de RSS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-1478</guid>
		<description>Hello there, I just stumbled upon your blog (again!) so this time I thought&#039;d I&#039;d say thanks for the awesome site! Keep it up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello there, I just stumbled upon your blog (again!) so this time I thought&#8217;d I&#8217;d say thanks for the awesome site! Keep it up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-526</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-526</guid>
		<description>@Paul: Good point, and most of the sites I see that are wide are in the technical arena and so are likely to have higher resolutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Paul: Good point, and most of the sites I see that are wide are in the technical arena and so are likely to have higher resolutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-525</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-525</guid>
		<description>I decide widths based on what resolutions Google Analytics says have been viewing the site. Usually, less than 1% have used a smaller resolution than 1000px wide, so I figure 950px is a pretty safe amount. I don&#039;t think horizontal scrollbars are good for 1024x768.

I think deciding your ideal width depends a lot on who is going to use the site. If it&#039;s likely to be technically-capable people, then you can probably expect larger resolutions and design with that in mind. If your audience is more of typical computer users, you should probably go a bit narrower.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I decide widths based on what resolutions Google Analytics says have been viewing the site. Usually, less than 1% have used a smaller resolution than 1000px wide, so I figure 950px is a pretty safe amount. I don&#8217;t think horizontal scrollbars are good for 1024&#215;768.</p>
<p>I think deciding your ideal width depends a lot on who is going to use the site. If it&#8217;s likely to be technically-capable people, then you can probably expect larger resolutions and design with that in mind. If your audience is more of typical computer users, you should probably go a bit narrower.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-524</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-524</guid>
		<description>@Rarst: Good point, although the latest browsers do make a much better job of scaling sites than they used to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rarst: Good point, although the latest browsers do make a much better job of scaling sites than they used to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rarst</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-523</link>
		<dc:creator>Rarst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-523</guid>
		<description>I have more specifi gripe with widths - how they scale while zoomed. I like my browser full-screen (that&#039;s 1400x900 and mostly content area with Opera interface tweaked for minimalism) and I like to zoom so page is large and well-readable.

Some sites (like blogs) scale well but some of those popular-mainstream-outlets have terrible layout while zoomed and sometimes pagination of article on top.

I just hope that with resolutions increasing (and mobile web rising) more web-designers start to pay attention how their sites scale up to large and down to small displays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have more specifi gripe with widths &#8211; how they scale while zoomed. I like my browser full-screen (that&#8217;s 1400&#215;900 and mostly content area with Opera interface tweaked for minimalism) and I like to zoom so page is large and well-readable.</p>
<p>Some sites (like blogs) scale well but some of those popular-mainstream-outlets have terrible layout while zoomed and sometimes pagination of article on top.</p>
<p>I just hope that with resolutions increasing (and mobile web rising) more web-designers start to pay attention how their sites scale up to large and down to small displays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-521</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-521</guid>
		<description>@Lyndi: 850-950 is what I have worked to also. Take a look at http://nettuts.com though, is that site too wide?

Personally I think it&#039;s fine, but it is actually 1002px wide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Lyndi: 850-950 is what I have worked to also. Take a look at <a href="http://nettuts.com" rel="nofollow">http://nettuts.com</a> though, is that site too wide?</p>
<p>Personally I think it&#8217;s fine, but it is actually 1002px wide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lyndi</title>
		<link>http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/2009/02/16/how-wide-should-your-site-be/comment-page-1/#comment-520</link>
		<dc:creator>Lyndi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinksynergy.co.uk/?p=354#comment-520</guid>
		<description>I was also one of those who felt that there should be no horizontal scrollbars in 800 X 600. This has changed now. There are very few users using this small resolution. Today I design to make sure I do not get a horizontal scrollbar in 1024 X 768. Most of my fixed width designs these days are between 850px and 950px wide.

Your description of how you use windows is also the very reason why I dislike fluid designs. I tend to stick to fixed width and make sure the full width can be viewed in 1024 X 768. This way the guys with the big resolutions can still see a substantial part of the page without having to maximize. I suppose that with time this will move up to the next resolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was also one of those who felt that there should be no horizontal scrollbars in 800 X 600. This has changed now. There are very few users using this small resolution. Today I design to make sure I do not get a horizontal scrollbar in 1024 X 768. Most of my fixed width designs these days are between 850px and 950px wide.</p>
<p>Your description of how you use windows is also the very reason why I dislike fluid designs. I tend to stick to fixed width and make sure the full width can be viewed in 1024 X 768. This way the guys with the big resolutions can still see a substantial part of the page without having to maximize. I suppose that with time this will move up to the next resolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
