Have you noticed that most blogs and sites are designed with fixed widths? They’re made as if 640×480 was still the “standard” resolution, and, if the browser window is larger, they don’t adapt.
Most of them look really bad at 1600×1200, with a smallish column in the middle, and most of the screen (assuming you have the browser maximized) being wasted.
What’s odd is that virtually all the successful blogs are this way! Consider ProBlogger, or Steve Pavlina’s blog, or GamePolitics, or most of the blogs at Planeta Asterisco.
It’s incredibly rare to see a blog like Performancing, which looks good at 1600×1200.
But why do most people configure their blogs this way? Is it apathy? Laziness? Because the WordPress and Blogger default themes are like that? Lack of theme editing skills? Is it because everyone else does it that way?
Or do all those people know something I don’t? For instance, has it been proven that people prefer to read blogs that way? Does it make them easier to read? Do they work better in terms of AdSense conversions?
I really don’t know the answer. It can’t be purely technical, as in “most people still surf at low resolutions”, because it’s really easy to write (or edit) a little CSS to make blogs use the entire browser width, and look good both at 800×600 and at 1600×1200.
So… what do you think? Do people do this simply because everyone else does :), or is there an actual reason behind it?
Related posts:
RSS feed
in my opinion, you *don’t* need 1600×1200 to read a blog and those who have such a screen don’t maximize windows but instead take advantage of the higher resolution to keep several windows open at the same time. this is the reason I would think when developing any kind of website, not just blogs.
Actually, studies have shown that there are optimal line lengths for reading text. There’s a good discussion of it here, along with other tips to increase readability. Now, I’m not saying these blogs are doing it on purpose… to be honest, it’s a lot simpler to create fixed-width layouts that look good in all browsers than to have to deal with the vagaries of CSS and browser bugs to get completely flexible (”liquid”) layouts, especially in 3 columns.
You’re correct — we know something you don’t.
orixilus: I prefer to use tabs, and multiple desktops (when using Linux), so I have my browser(s) in full screen. I admit that I’m probably not a typical, average user, though.
Eric: thanks for the link. Maybe studies say that short lines are easy to read… I don’t know. Using the entire screen allows me to use slightly larger fonts, like I do here, which, to me, increases readability a lot. BTW: your blog happens to be one of the few full width ones.
Steve: and that would be…?
I am fairly new to blogging and I thought it was weird - still do - just assumed there was a reason for it. I don’t particularly like it. I guess it could be that there are a lot of people out there like me who are lacking in skills and use free templates of determined size - because it is all we can handle.
@pedro: that’s why Eric mentioned “liquid”, which is a kind of page that doesn’t stretch when you maximise the window, but do stretches when you increase the font size. The trick is to use “em” sizes as much as possible.
I’m with Eric. Fixed width layouts are easier to accomplish, although it’s not that big of a deal if you use proportional units (em, %) for text size and stuff. The thing is that most bloggers aren’t webdesigners. And like orixilus has mentioned, what good is your 23″ running on 1600×1200 for if you only going to have ONE window maximized? You’re the one spoiling desktop space… the only “sin” the designer has commited was to design using pixels for font sizes, but you can always rely on your browser to increase your text. If you have such a screen you better know how to use it, if not, I’ll be glad to email you my snail mail address so that we can trade. (I have a 17″crt old white bastard, just so you know. works great @ 1024×768)
(Pedro, not aimed at “you” specifically, just trying to target those high-end users with such screens.
Fixed width is not always bad. On a personal note, I prefer fixed to pure liquid, which extend proportionally to the width of the screen… you should always have a maximum width.. IE needs a little extra help (js) with that though..
Take a look at some professional sites http://www.guardian.co.uk/ or http://news.bbc.co.uk/. The screen widths designed to fit smaller monitors (lap tops etc). Then they can look ok with larger monitors, but are not annoying users with smaller ones by forcing them to scroll sideways .
Most people with large monitors rarely have the browsers open to full size.
with tabbed navigation, there’s actually no need to keep several window opened and aligned on screen. So I totally agree with the post’s author. I love wide, spreaded blogs
andr3: the 20″ monitor is at work. It’s not mine.
Tim: a full width design does NOT mean I have to scroll sideways. See the examples I gave. Performancing, or my blogs, for instance, use the entire browser width, but that doesn’t mean I have a horizontal scroll bar at 800×600 or something.
Bruno: does “liquid” mean that? I though it meant that the sizes aren’t fixed. Must investigate…
thats true…i also have the same problem
propertytips.blogspot.com
theresonlyoneunited.blogspot.com
From Wikipedia:
So, I was right about what “liquid” means, but, on the other hand, there are indeed studies (like Eric mentioned) which say that people prefer to read short lines… Hmmm…
Instead of “fixed” or “liquid” layout, you can use “elastic”.
That way, you can define a max-width on the website to keep the lines short. But when you increase the text, that max-width will increase too (em’s) so that the layout stretches with the text, keeping the lines with the same number os words/characters.
Take a look at it here:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200504/fixed_or_fluid_width_elastic/