Also, I spent good money on a big screen.
I based the width somewhat on other current websites.
The reason why most single-column websites are not wider is certainly because the long lines that result from continuous text are more difficult to read, and text sections with many short lines create a lot of empty space.
I can get the "difficult to read", if (and only if) such a very wide paragraph had at the same time many lines at that width (at the very least 5 or more). Otherwise its easy to stay on line, imho. (And then, if width must get limited, it could be done going multi column / but that is just a generic remark, I don't think the fpc page should go multi column)
The empty spaces is a strange argument for limiting the width, since limiting the width is creating a lot of empty space.
The issue is, anyone (desktop, not mobile) can size their browser, if they don't want the page that wide.
And (imho) anyone who sized their browser to be full screen width then wants to use that width.
How many devices are there that
- have a screen that big/wide
- do not have on OS/Desktop that allows the browser to be sized to part of that screen
?
I.e. on a mobile, the "line to long = difficult to read" will hardly happen.
On a tablet, well, if the person uses a really tiny font, but then they will have a reason for that tiny font....
The design of the page is responsive, so it adapts to smaller screens and, of course, fills the entire screen on a smartphone.
I hadn't tested that, would have been my next question: Smartphone, but turned sidewards....
Ignoring that I really don't get why a width needs to be relative to font-size???
In responsive web design, pixels are a rather rarely used unit of measurement.
I wasn't advocating pixel.
Percentage (of the parent / viewport) is a relative measurement. And should work universal?
Relative dimensions such as “em” or “rem” are much more important here. The screen resolution in ppi is then taken into account in the display. (Lazarus can also do this with ‘PixelsPerInch’ / “Scaled”).
An example: On a standard PC screen with a resolution of 92 ppi, a letter of 16 pixels (including ascenders and descenders) is 4.4 mm high.
On an iPhone 13 with a resolution of 457 ppi, such a 16-pixel letter would be just 0.88 mm high.
EM/REM are good for "fixed sizes" (with scaling). E.g. a box that should have a size fitting certain content, never mind the size of the screen/viewport.
EM/REM could be used as minsize, to force scrolling, if a viewport is too small.
The viewport itself of course reports its size already "scaled", so percentage of the viewport is an equally portable measure.
I don't however see a good argument to say "a viewport is too big". Unless, there is a viewport of which it is known that the user can not control it. Otherwise the users personal settings should have the highest priority.
Recent
