Does anyone other than me hate these websites that are going full width of the screen? I know it is all the rage but readability and visual scanning is completely trashed. More times than not, like 90% of the time, I just leave the website in a matter of seconds. Even www.RealMacSoftware.com, I went looking for something and just gave up.
I have to admit, @Flash, I have no idea what you’re on about. And that’s from someone who’s had the nickname Flash back in university.
Tell me what you were looking for and couldn’t find and I’ll gladly point you in the right direction.
Not looking for anything just making a general comment.
A website that is 4096 pixels wide is hard to read and generally hard to find information on. Most of the time I find those websites do not have a flow to them. More like a bunch of random, incomplete soundbites plastered all over.
I never open my web browser full size of the screen. It is always a bit over half the width of the screen. If you do that, you can still access your Desktop. The websites are looking great and have nice readability.
It is not about the width of the website per se it is about the width of the text. Even with full width background images the text is usually constrained to a maximum width. The mistake that people make is usually letting this width creep too large.
All research points to an optimal character count of between 45 and 75 characters per line for optimal readability.The best examples are blogging platforms such as https://medium.com where the width of the text area, the font, the font size and the kerning are all very carefully setup for readability.
Full width backgrounds and block divided pages do not need to suffer readability problems if these rules are followed. It is not necessary to build everything in an “old fashioned” pillar arrangement to make it easy to read - it just needs sound typography and careful design.
I switch between Mac and Windows all day and I’ve noticed that most Windows users run all their apps full screen where Mac users usually run theirs window’d. Bigger Monitors give us more play room but if you run a browser full screen on a narrow site such as the BBC news one you end up with 2/3 of the screen being wasted.
For this site I set the max content width to be 1400 and used FontPro to manage the text sizes, if you narrow your browser window then you see the text change to 4 different sizes depending on its width, It still leaves about 1/2 the screen unoccupied when full screen on a 27" but as the background and header/footer are full width its not to stark.
I was aiming for Tav’s 75 chars per line but the font ended up being too big, Once I got a font size I/the client was happy with it ended up being about 108/line. Here’s another one that about 108/line
The number of characters are important. What is also important is the pixel width, how far does the eye have to travel? The longer it travels the more tired it becomes. Also if the lines are too tight or the width is not long enough the eye gets lost or tired trying to stay on track. Obviously font style has a lot to do with it as well.
The other issue is how many columns do I have to scan to find what I am looking for? Are the common things for running a business easily accessible? Are there text links within the body pointing me to helpful additional areas of content without leading me off target?
If every page is a sales page what does that tell me about the greed of the website? If every page is a support page what does that tell about the product?
My point is the art of thinking and planning seems to be a dying breed to making it look good at all cost. Balance is the goal and sometimes that takes skill, research, knowledge and trial and error.
And maybe you should respect your elders…
I am sure this was meant as a joke, but can seriously see how it would not be taken that way. Just play nice…
I’m American and I got it. I mean seriously, read the headline.
52, and the nickname was given to me from the way I work as an Executive Chef and Owner. I can still bring for 12-14 hours a day. It just hurts a lot worse in the morning.
Count me as another guy who is too old… in the past it was very obvious that a web page continued down and you realized intuitively that you had to scroll down… Now, there is a nice neat picture that ends at the bottom of the screen (fits the window perfectly) and you feel as though you are looking at the whole page. (But no, I’m only looking at the top pic.) There is something just not right when you have to put a fa-carat-down or similar on a page to let the visitor know to scroll down. But then, I’m a guy who simply HAS to have a mouse and who HATES touch screens, iOS, etc… the touchpad I added on my iMac never get used…
Look at the realmacsoftware.com page and see how NOT obvious it is to scroll down to see Squash. If your window opens and matches the top pic only it almost invites you NOT to scroll down because it appears the page is “complete.” Yes, it is all preference. But my burning question is: Why the Squash logo an orange? (Easy everyone… that’s all in fun.)
Maybe I’m just out of the loop. I am one of the old geezers after all!
checking google Shopping - it does appear to be an English thing… I can get a single bottle for $15 shipped… Very few “orange squash” returns here…
OK. First this (isn’t that what KB articles are for?)
Second, you’re all a bunch of snotty-nosed kids to me. So, stop the racket!
In the US, Orange Crush is a very popular soda drink. “Crush” those images!
I see it as simply squeezing oranges to make orange juice. American here
Real Mac made it info a brand/name. So I would think it should be capitalized.
I’m 56 and I like full-width web pages because they can display beautiful widescreen images and backgrounds. Re. Text - in the words of Brian Eno, when faced with a choice - do both. Have a widescreen web page but a perfectly sized text box and font size for any written content. Also compartmentalise content into sections. Here is my site as an example.