Try Tuts+ Premium, Get Cash Back!
Life Beyond 960px: Designing for Large Screens

Life Beyond 960px: Designing for Large Screens

The premise behind a responsive web isn’t purely that websites be built in a mobile-friendly way. It’s about setting our content free so that it can be experienced by whatever means necessary – and that includes at large scale. Let’s take a look at the design considerations behind the often neglected huge desktop screen.

Republished Tutorial

Every few weeks, we revisit some of our reader's favorite posts from throughout the history of the site. This tutorial was first published in June of 2012.


What’s the Big Deal?

Those of you who enjoy playing with flexible layouts will (like me) undoubtedly get a weird kick out of seeing your designs adapt comfortably to small viewports. What was once a beautiful multi-column layout becomes an equally beautiful, snug pillar of readable text, free of clutter and unnecessary nonsense. But how many of you think of your layouts beyond the comfort of a 960 grid?

Believe it or not, there are people who view your work at hi-def cinematic wide-screen glory (even Apple’s 27″ iMac and Thunderbolt displays enjoy a resolution of 2560x1440px). Computer screens are getting bigger, so where does that leave your 960px responsive layout? Floating adrift in the middle of an ocean, is where.

Over five percent of Webdesigntuts+ visitors last month did so on a screen like the one above, not a figure to be sniffed at. And before you jump down my throat about the layout of this site, rest assured a solution is in the works!


Why 960?

We seem to be stuck at 960px, a width which has become standard through use of grid systems. For a long time it was unsual to find screens larger than 1024x768px, so our fixed width layouts certainly couldn’t exceed that. 960px is actually a great figure to work with because:

  • It allows whitespace (and chrome) either side.
  • It divides nicely into a wide range of columns (2,3,4,5,6 and 8) with all relevant combinations.

Problems appeared when accessing the internet on smaller devices became common. Larger layouts are awkward to view properly through tiny viewports, so, neccessity being the mother of all invention, our attention was logically turned to address this issue. A 960px layout will still look fine on a larger screen, so designers often think of responsive web design as a way to make their layouts mobile friendly.


Mobile Last

We’re used to designing mid-sized layouts. For that reason it’s easier (though many of you won’t admit it) to visualize and design just as you always have done, then trim things down for mobile. Your first venture into RWD will likely involve degrading media queries like this (taken from the Skeleton boilerplate):

	/*all your initial styles go here..*/
	body {
		width: big-ish;
	}
	/* Smaller than standard 960 (devices and browsers) */
	@media only screen and (max-width: 959px) {}
	/* Tablet Portrait size to standard 960 (devices and browsers) */
	@media only screen and (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 959px) {}
	/* All Mobile Sizes (devices and browser) */
	@media only screen and (max-width: 767px) {}
	/* Mobile Landscape Size to Tablet Portrait (devices and browsers) */
	@media only screen and (min-width: 480px) and (max-width: 767px) {}
	/* Mobile Portrait Size to Mobile Landscape Size (devices and browsers) */
	@media only screen and (max-width: 479px) {}

Start big, then work your way down to smaller devices. This is awkward for a number of reasons, not least being that you’re often committing yourself to a maximum layout width before venturing into other potential screen sizes. Going back to account for larger screen sizes means rejigging your media queries.

A mobile first approach, on the other hand, means that you’d first cater for the smallest possible screens, then build your media queries as viewports become larger. Tacking another media query on the end, because you notice a breakpoint at 2000px, is straight-forward.


Fill ‘er Up!

The obvious solution is to allow our flexible layouts to spread the full width of whichever screen they’re viewed on. Easy! But there’s a reason you’ll often see max-width cropping up in responsive css; designing for large screens requires careful consideration.

Leaving technical hurdles aside for a moment, how do we actually design for larger screens? A few approaches spring to mind, so let’s work our way through them in a logical fashion.


Open the Floodgates

Assuming we’re dealing with a fluid grid, we can just allow our columns to spread proportionately and fill the available screen space.

The glaring issue with this approach is having super-wide columns of text. A body of text 30cm wide isn’t going to do your layout any favours aesthetically, but, more importantly, the readability will also be reduced.

The width of a line of text is typographically referred to as the “measure”, and in order to preserve readability should aim to be around 45 to 75 characters in length. Too many characters and it becomes difficult for the reader’s eye to move back across the text and locate the beginning of the next line. This can be combatted by increasing the line-height (leading), easy enough to implement at the appropriate moments through media queries, but it’s not a complete solution.

The CSS3 multi column layout module looks promising in this respect. Once a body of text reaches a certain width, splitting it into an appropriate number of columns would solve readability issues. We’re getting ahead of ourselves though. Browser implementation of CSS3 columns is still inconsistent and falls short on a few typographic details.

I think we were getting warm when we mentioned increasing line-height, which leads me to the next approach..


Size Matters

Bear with me on this one – how about we just scale everything up? Certainly, as a far as type is concerned, it would make sense. Readability is once again at the heart of this; larger screens are generally viewed from further away. We view screens most comfortably with a viewing angle of around 30°.

Which effectively means;

The larger the screen, the greater the optimum comfortable viewing distance.

This translates to an optimum viewing distance of 3-6 screen widths. Note: these figures apply specifically to televisual viewing, but the principles for desktop monitors remain the same. Apple recommend that you sit between 18″ and 24″ from your display, depending on its size. They suggest 15″ from the newest iPad, 10″ from an iPhone 4.

That’s a significant range, so it would seem sensible to alter font-size in relation to the distance from which it’s being read.

Ems are our friend here. By setting your type, line-height, indeed the whole baseline grid (there’s a challenge), using relative units of measurement (ems or rems) it’s very easy to scale the whole thing up.

/*set initial value*/
html {
	font-size: 100%;
}
body {
	font-size: 0.875em; /*14px*/
}
	/*boost it when the time's right*/
	@media only screen and (min-width: 768px) {
		body {
			font-size: 1em; /*16px*/
		}
	}

I’m a fan of large, readable type, but if you’ve ever been wary of setting your body copy at 16px, maybe a large screen layout is just the place to get your hands dirty!


Reorganizing

Advanced CSS layouts are a fair way off yet, but even in our world of floats we can reorganize layouts without too much difficulty. If the aim of this exercise is to make the most of unutilized screen real estate, why not simply bring hidden content back into the picture?

Take the footer, for example. More often than not it finds itself hidden offscreen, at the bottom of the page. That’s not a problem; it’s not exactly the place for highly important content, but a page footer can contain useful information, so consider tacking it onto the side of your layout as an additional column.

Semantically it’s still a <footer>. The markup is still stating where its content belongs in relation to the page’s hierarchy, but we’re free to put it where we please. Working to a grid and working to a modular layout structure will make this more easily achievable.

You could also shift body content upwards by repositioning horizontal elements such as primary navigation, transforming what was a vertically biased layout into a more horizontal orientation.


Wrap it All Up

I suggest a combination of all these approaches would set you in good stead; build for mobile first, allow your layout to flow widthways, boost scale (slightly) and reposition modular elements.

Take a look at how that all comes together (I’ve even thrown the CSS3 multi-columns in there for good measure).


But

There are always buts..

Don’t forget whitespace. Whitespace at the edges of a page layout is what defines that very layout. The empty areas of a screen lend focus to areas of content and help direct the user’s eye. Don’t eagerly fill whitespace just beacuse you can.

This is particularly true with respect to our ‘repositioning’ approach. A modular layout can happily be rearranged so that hidden content is brought into view. But presenting the user with more information to process can dilute what you’re trying to achieve.

Take this example from recent sneek peeks of Windows 8. On smaller devices the tiled interface is very effective:

On larger screens it can best be described as confusing:


Images by The Next Web

So the concept that “space is there to be filled” isn’t necessarily true. Still, I hope this gives you food for thought and I look forward to hearing your own experiences when designing for large screens.


Further Resources

Note: Want to add some source code? Type <pre><code> before it and </code></pre> after it. Find out more
  • Christopher

    Fantastic article! Ironic that tutsplus is still behind on this idea but I understand its a big undertaking. The smashing magazine redesign is an excellent example of what you have described.

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      +1 on the Smashing Magazine reference (they did a great job and are often used as an example of how it can be done!)

  • Rick

    i love this article!
    I was having trouble designing a website i’m working on for my intern.
    But now this has given me so much more idea’s do’s and do not’s etc.
    Thank you!

  • http://godsofart.com S3bY

    I totally agree! I hope in the near future more and more sites will adopt wider layouts!

  • http://www.amazing-web-design.co.uk/ Joe Elliott

    Hi Ian

    I have designed for responsive design, it really can be a nuisance. This is a great piece to get you on the right road. When I have designed for mobile I usually use a separate style sheet for mobile and then my main one for the norm and upwards, would you say I should adjust this so it’s all on the one style sheet?

    Thanks
    Joe

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      Hi Joe, that’s entirely up to you really; whatever makes your workflow easier. I would try to make sure that:

      - Your pages aren’t loading up resources which they don’t use.
      - You minimise the number of server requests where possible (every call to a stylesheet, image, or other asset is an http request).
      - And there’s no point in duplicating style rules across different stylesheets. Make duplicated styles global for easier maintenance.

      Apart from that, use media queries and stylesheets however you like :)

  • http://grantpalin.com Grant Palin

    I’ve had this thought before. “Mobile first” emphasizes starting with a small screen size and building up to larger screens. When there is simply a lot of screen space available, it could be possible to, say, move top navigation into a side column, or to use larger images, or, or…The possibilities are huge, and by starting with a small screen and building up, it’s possible to maximize the experience for all users regardless of screen size.

  • dj

    Ian…

    I’ve got two things to say about this article:

    1- I hope that my (fairly) persistent nagging over the past year had at least a small part to do with your article. Well thought out and added several nuggets of thought that even I hadn’t thought to mention in any of my comments; and,

    2- I hope that this is only the first of many such articles. Of course, I’d like to see Envato set a “standard” of some sort for submissions on articles about RWD – in that they MUST include the “full spectrum” of widths before they can be called “responsive.” And, it would be nice on the next iteration of Envato’s site styling if ya’ll do the same.

    I Agree, with your comment about over-doing it – I’d throw out the example of Chris Coyier’s CSS-tricks home page as an example of how to do it, if anyone wants a real world example. Absolutely no one can say that Chris takes the lazy-man’s way out. The past several iterations of the “tricks” site has given up the 960 grid – it’s soooo last year!

    • Al

      my comment to a site like Chris Coyiers – when you only ever view the site using one screen resolution, you really don’t notice all of the work inviolved in setting it up for different widths. I guess now I will have to look at the site and narrow my screen to see what happens.

      Al

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      Yes dj, your nagging certainly acted as a catalyst – thanks :)

      We also have some great RWD stuff coming this way very soon, so I’m sure you’ll enjoy that. As for Mr.Coyier’s site (and Smashing) they definitely have the right idea (showing what *can* be done) and I’m rallying as best I can to get an equally solid Tuts+ redesign underway!

    • Ralf

      Well, what Chris Coyer did is putting the whitespace in the middle instead of the sides. This shows that even an experienced designer (with lots of content) does’t know how to deal with the big screen. At least he didn’t spread the text over 80 characters wide. I really like his work, just to be clear, he did a great job on the design and functionality.

      Smashingmag did a good job, but they have a lot of content. Still, in my opinion they would have done better to leave most of the side-stuff out. It is still too overwhelming.

      I think the downsides in the comments and the article speak for itself. Most of the time designing for the big screen makes things worse. So go ahead, make the font size bigger, put the navigation on the side so you get what, 1200px maybe? You should leave it at that.

      So, my opinion on this is, build a good experience and don’t overdo it. You don’t have to stick to the 960 (which still is a good starting-point if you’re not going the mobile first route), but don’t blow it up just because you can.

  • http://twitter.com/mrxxiv Mr.XXIV

    Considering that the Macbook Pro with Retina Display has a higher resolution than the Cinema Display (I believe), it’s definitely going to be more confusing! But still, quality for quality.

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      Retina displays do have greater resolution; their screens have a higher pixel density. However, user agents on those devices account for that by scaling up – they still display web pages at the same ‘physical’ size.

      You’ll notice a discrepancy in image quality, but anything which you generate with CSS will behave exactly as you expect on a retina display. CSS is resolution independent! Check out this article on Quirksmode for more details :)

  • Pingback: Life Beyond 960px: Designing for Large Screens | Webdesigntuts+ » Web Design

  • LessLessMoreMore

    I’m going to keep designing for 960px grid, and I’m not going to stop and make my headache bigger until 2000px+ width screens become at least a sizable chunk of the market, if not the norm. I know a lot of people are acting like huge screens are an impending revolution, and articles like this and ones about SVG are popping up, but it’s still a small % of total screens being used.

    I know hype is loud when Apple is involved, and the new retina Macbook and iPad are the two biggest reasons for the mega-high-res hype right now, but it’s a bit silly to get this worked up about huge screens because of [literally] a couple of devices. It’s coming, but it’s not here yet. Brace for it, but I see no need to fully embrace it now. Web developers too often like doing the new thing full force now and getting geeky about it just because they anally need to be on the ball and not look like an uncool noob doing yesterday’s thing.

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      You’re missing the point; this isn’t about targeting specific screen sizes, it’s about preparing content for whatever the viewing circumstances happen to be. The presence of big screens has nothing to do with Apple, nothing to do with retina displays (high pixel density does not equal large scale) and going beyond 960px is absolutely something you should think about right now.

      Take a look at this image
      (source) which suggests that nearly 80% of current desktop displays are 1280px or wider.

      • The Insaint

        Well, the reason everyone is sticking to 960 is simply as you wrote:

        The width of a line of text is typographically referred to as the “measure”, and in order to preserve readability should aim to be around 45 to 75 characters in length. Too many characters and it becomes difficult for the reader’s eye to move back across the text and locate the beginning of the next line. This can be combatted by increasing the line-height (leading),[...]

        In your last example, going from 1024 to 1920 makes the textbox almost a third wider, meaning more characters to read per line (this is bad as we all know). It doesn’t change line height (needed, but not key) and it don’t change font size (more important).

        So in sum, all you have done is a liquid design which is, as always, a bad solution for every site that need content to be read nice and easy and stuck to a certain position. Meaning it’s good at 1024 but it sucks at 1920. Responsive or not, this is not acceptable.

        The thing is, if you want proportionally size up the elements, you have to size up also the font. Wider boxes (bigger screens in general) meaning larger font sizes. If you stay at the same size for the font and going larger all around it, it becomes harder to read and, most of all, ugly.

        And there are still graphics used in webdesign, that aren’t easily resized on the fly …

        “responsive design” … nice buzz word but nothing real behind it right now, sorry.

        • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
          Author

          Not really sure what you’re talking about – I did scale the font size (amongst other things), and dedicated a whole section of the article to describe my doing so (?)

        • http://twitter.com/ruaridhcurrie ruaridhcurrie

          A very good point – always preserve the the optimum width for reading. That is ultimately why people visit as website – to read content, and people should be able to read in its most confortable format, the optimal width of 45-75 characters per line. I do think a lot of people are forgetting this recently.

        • Todd Swardenski

          I see your comment is from a few months ago, but I disagree that RWD is just a fad or a buzzword. It’s very easy to manipulate the text and everything else to fit nicely within massive viewports.

          As far as the the text issue is concerned, Trent Walton has a very nice article on the topic here .. http://trentwalton.com/2012/06/19/fluid-type/

      • Manuel

        Not necessarily true.

        The chart you are referring to does not provide any data that tells us what resolution is most common out there, rather, it sticks to the evolution in size, which doesn’t support your point. Yes, screens are getting larger, but the norm for high-resolution or HD is still close to 960 px (e.g., 1080 p).

        In Google Analytics data that I have for the sites I build, the most common are 1280×800 and 1024×768. Less than 3% is above 1280px wide…

        I also see a tendency to stick to 960 px because ultra books only have 1024 or 1280 px wide resolution. There’s no data out there that shows a definite trend toward a larger screen and higher resolution for web usage. Perhaps you’ll see higher pixel density in tablets and mobile devices, but that makes your point moot because you have the website in your hands, and for mobile, the trend is that users will zoom in to the content that they want to see.

        Cheers.

        • http://viget.com Tommy

          I am not sure designing for the “norm” is the right way to put it. Do you mean designing for the average screen size of your visitors, so two 800px and 2 1400px would be 1100px? Also, it is safe to assume that the user has their browser the full width of their screen, making Ian’s data more relevant than you think.

          Responsive, or at the very least adaptive, design is where the hardware and customers are taking us. We aren’t designing just for users on their 15″ desktop anymore. Of course we still keep them in mind, but they don’t have a single device. We now are designing and building for their high res display, tablet, and mobile devices.

          This discussion is about user experience. Do you want your visitor to be completely engaged, and drawn into a site, (which sometimes demands taking up the users screen, though not always) or are you simply trying to display the standard? 960 didn’t become a rule because it was divisible by 12, a nice even number, etc. It was used because 1024 was the most common number of pixels wide screens were at the time. Realizing the deviation in the size of screens is getting larger, shouldn’t we grow with this?

          It’s the combination of art and technology, not one versus the other. It’s realizing that sometimes the art (design) should fit the canvas (viewable screen).

    • Chris

      Not really sure you make any valid points. Responsive web design is about making your webpage intuitive, useable, attractive, and functional no matter what it’s being viewed on. The point of this article is to remind people that there is a large portion of viewers for which 960px is very narrow, and offers some tips on how to include those people to make your design truly responsive, not just mobile-friendly.

      Also.. there are plenty of people with big screens. When browsing on my entertainment pc, i always feel weird because its displayed on my tv… 960px is freakin small on a 1920px wide display, and it looks dumb.

  • http://drivez.blogspot.com hafiz

    good article, bookmark this..

  • http://www.devdigital.com Dev Digital

    Excellent article, really impressed with the idea of thinking beyond 960px for large screens. All web designers should adopt this practice.

  • http://www.stylewired.com Chris

    Great article. I find that on my large screen at home I tend to reduce window sizes to make small text and wide columns more readable (e.g. Wikipedia is terrible in large screens).

    I need to read the IA article you referenced and take this kind of thing into account more so in my work.

    It makes me envisage a world where we read our favourite blog on our mobile phone while on the train home, then we get in, swipe it onto our widescreen TV and continue reading (perhaps while cooking), from across the room. Readability from 10 inches to 20ft all needs to be taken into account. Columns, font size, leading, screen width.

    Very inspiring. I’ll have a read of the IA article next.

    Thank you!

  • http://www.dhaneshtk.com dini

    Amazing…..
    Really like the layout adapting..this is called truly elastic.

  • Adrian Oprea

    Fantastic article, I enjoyed every bit of it ! Also, the resources you posted in the end of this article are pure gold! Thank you !

  • Techeese

    Interesting article.
    though now for some reason, I’m interested at how web designers design in Ps/Fw when going beyond 960px as well. :)

    also
    question: Is 960px(fixed) width should still be used instead of fluid width starting from this very year? a few years before majority is still at “yes, we can still use 960px” what about now? Ian Poll time please :)

  • http://www.villagranstudios.com leandro

    Great article, I actually been designing a site for a client hows website is going to be display on tv screens and so I can see why is really important now more than ever to take into consideration more devices than just the regular desktop screen and seem that when talking about device independent design a lot of people instantly think about mobile devices as if desktop were going to dissapear forever.

    • Manuel

      Large televisions don’t necessarily have high-resolution displays. If the TVs you’re purchasing are 780p, you’re at the lowest resolution in the market. Test with a 700 px micro-site.

      If it’s an HD 1080p television set, it will natively display your 960 site correctly.

      Cheers!

      • l

        720p, 1080p – lines up/down not wide. 720p is 1280/1336 wide. So there sould not be a problem for a 960px website.

  • http://franklaemmer.de Frank Lämmer

    i rather like some more white space than a cluttered screen. the new smashing magazine website on a big screen is a lot of input. it’s technical hot, but i am not quite sure if i really like it. tuts pages are ok like this for me.

  • DIMON

    good article.

    as for me I never love this grid staff. working with 1000px wide ~2 years.

  • Pingback: Weekly Web Developers Kit – vol. 14 (6-15-2012) « CSS Tips

  • http://www.daquanwright.com Daquan Wright

    When it comes to wider screens, I’ve always wondered what is the best approach. I like the idea of keeping it minimal and letting whitespace flow between the gaps.

    I think 960 is standard, because that length is easy to work with when figuring out the reading panes and such. We definitely don’t want characters to go over 80 in a line as reading then becomes tiring.

  • http://www.thecreativesheep.ca Christopher

    960×600 is the ideal largest screen size, news to me, I am a Intermediate web designer. I view the web at 1680×1050 which is a high resolution.

  • Pingback: Plasma First: Apple TV, SmartGlass and the New World of Multi-Screen Cloud Content | Ready Made Social Network Site Guide

  • Pingback: Plasma First: Apple TV, SmartGlass and the New World of Multi-Screen Cloud Content | Social Network news

  • Pingback: Plasma First: Apple TV, SmartGlass and the New World of Multi-Screen Cloud Content | Tech News

  • Pingback: Plasma First: Apple TV, SmartGlass and the New World of Multi-Screen Cloud Content | Ready Made Social Network Website Guide

  • http://www.tinocordes.dk/webdesign Tino Cordes

    I’ve started using Bootstrap. So I’m doing web design that’s between 392 and 1200 px wide. There’s a little more work to it, but definitely worth it.

  • http://www.inglesnarede.com.br Renato Alves

    Great article! It gave me so much ideas and inspiration to future projects. Thanks folks! :D

  • http://www.bartechnical.com grendel

    interesting article; large screen design definitely needs more thought and attention, but i cannot help but feel a little frustrated at some of the suggestions and ideas.

    there are more elements at play here.

    One, for instance, is how people use their 1900+ screens. In our studio there is not one person who maximises their browser – the whole purpose of the larger screens (unless watching movies or playing games – i.e. applications for full screen use) is to have better resolution and to be able to fit more windows (no microsoft plug intended) and apps (mac balance restored) on the screen at once. Most people with large screens (I would hope) know how to use their big screen canvas effectively or will soon learn when they get a new big screen.

    I also do not know anyone that has purposefully distanced their monitor because of its size – what is the point of having a large monitor further away it you have to increase font sizes? You probably wont be able to read/recognise your desktop icons either – you might as well just use your large 1900+ monitor at 1024px if it is going to be an extra 3-6 screen widths away (my monitor for example would be more than 150cm away [need a bigger desk] if I set it back by 3 screen widths)

    And lastly, about the reorganisation. This can be great when the design suits it but I would not complicate any design (unless for a particular function or aesthetic) by shifting the footer into a new right column – it clutters the layout, the footer usually only displays static info anyway, it would break a consistent use of a set number of columns, etc. etc. A design that is flexible across multiple screen sizes, to me, should be as consistent as possible.

    anyway my two pennies worth.

    - considering most folks appreciation of the above article, i do not mean to say it is useless, but I think that there is much more to consider before we try to solve how to design for large screens. Most importantly: how people use their large screens and not assume that they maximise browser windows.

    • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
      Author

      Valid points Grendel – and you’re not the first to mention that people use large screens differently!

      I guess the point of this article is to cover the “what if?s” (actually, the whole point of RWD); we can’t presume that people place their larger screens further away, but we certainly can’t presume that they don’t. Neither can we categorically say whether people fill large displays with multiple windows, or full screen interfaces.

      I certainly see where you’re coming from though.

      Saying that, I disagree with what you say about reorganizing. If you have difficulty with seeing a footer shifted to the flanks of a layout, do you also have a problem when three columns are reduced to just one for a narrow viewport?

      Thanks for your input!

      • http://www.bartechnical.com grendel

        thanks for the reply, i appreciate your engagement..

        as to the flanking footer:

        - reducing to one narrow column is necessary when applied to a narrow viewport. it has to be done to make the site legible.
        - it also simplifies the layout. it makes it easier to see and read.
        - yes, this is a deviation from the primary design but it moves towards a simpler and cleaner solution for the user.

        - conversely, when more space is available, the footer does not need to be flanked. it is not necessary to make the site more legible.
        - it takes, a clean and well balance three column layout, for example, and suddenly turns it into a four column layout (not that four columns are dirty and unbalanced). this is can be a big change to any design though, and a major deviation from a style guide, or the way a user recognises page elements and navigation.
        - to me, this is a deviation from the main design which results in a more complex solution.

        having said that: there is nothing wrong with having a flanked footer if it is part of your design or function, or interaction, but (as per the three column example) I would not choose to flank the footer if the main design (from phone screen, to tablet, to desktop) has the footer at the end of the site.

        • http://www.snaptin.com Ian Yates
          Author

          I think we’re pretty much on the same page. If you read the final section of the post, you’ll see the example of an interface which over-complicates things on large screens. I definitely didn’t say it was compulsory to shift as much content onto the screen as possible, but we should always be aware of our options!

          Cheers.

          • http://www.bartechnical.com grendel

            +1 to options ; i agree

  • http://www.vanhove.com Steve VanHove

    Regarding the comment, “it’s easier … to visualize and design just as you always have done, then trim things down for mobile.”

    No, I think keeping all platforms in mind as I design works best. 320 & up!

  • James

    Why don’t all of you quit using twenty year old technology to design for today? If you were to insist on the web browser developers supporting real W3 standards you could be designing with SVG. Problem solved.

  • Andrew

    It’s really great to see sites using large layout that totally cover your screen.
    Right now we have to see large white spaces on both left and right hand side of the web page and that’s just good thing.
    I have found a site http://www.ameeto.com ( Ameeto ) using this thing. It’s totally screen fit on large screens but they are using jquery mobile for desktop that’s crazy but looks cool

    • http://create-n.blogspot.com/ Namanyay Goel

      That’s pretty much the worst site I’ve ever seen.

  • Pingback: The Weekly Web Design Update – Articles, Resources, Tutorials and Inspiration [#003] | Oirs World - Design News and Ideas

  • Pingback: Plasma First: Apple TV, SmartGlass and the New World of Multi-Screen Cloud Content | Create Own Social Network Tips

  • Pingback: Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton: Widescreen | Webdesigntuts+

  • Pingback: Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton: Widescreen |

  • Pingback: Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton: Widescreen | Shadowtek Hosting and Design Solutions

  • Pingback: My Stream | Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton: Widescreen | My Stream

  • Pingback: Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton: Widescreen | How to Web

  • Craig

    Why is the large Windows 8 screen considered confusing? You should note that it’s the PC’s user who customized it to look like that. I doubt they confused themselves.
    Since you can name groups and drag tiles anywhere, it’s easy to create information hierarchy

    • Ralf

      I think you are wrong. People confuse themselves all the time. That is why we designers have to protect them from doing so.

  • Pingback: Best of Tuts+ in June 2012 | Shadowtek Hosting and Design Solutions

  • Pingback: Best of Tuts+ in June 2012 | How to Web

  • Yurika

    You have 1190px wide, I’m looking forward to redesign of tutplus. Hahaha!

  • http://www.vegatechnolabs.com John D’sa

    Cool article. Makes a web designer aware of the fact that there are screens larger than 960px. Thanks a lot for sharing!

  • http://www.zhegu.org lugu

    nice.article..I always design in 960px…sometime design in 100% width….

    • Parrot

      cool

  • Pingback: Best of Tuts+ in June 2012 | clickshots

  • Pingback: Best of Tuts+ in June 2012 - Tutorial Barn

  • Nicole

    Hi
    I have got a problem with TYPO3 and this (really good!) tutorial for responsive Webdesign.
    In Firefox and Crome it works, also when I implement it in TYPO3. No problems.

    In IE 8 the “mobile” version is not displayed as promised.
    Some of the general formatting (css) works. For example the background Image, the font size, the color of links …
    But the colors of the different boxes and also the dropdown menu don’t work.

    To find the problem, I did the following steps:

    1. Open your demo in IE 8 (it works perfectly and shows the “mobile” version)
    2. Open my static HTML in IE 8 (it works after I permitted the browser to use a script .–> I have to klick on a message that appears at the top of my browser to do so)
    3. Open my Site (implemented in TYPO3 with the same Code as 2.) –> Here IE 8 does not ask to permit a script and the site looks as discribed (without colors of boxes, without dropdown menu …)

    I did not find the problem …

    Can you help me?

    Thanks :)

    Nicole

  • Pingback: 50 Design Blogs to Bookmark for 2012

  • Pingback: Building a Responsive Layout With Skeleton : Widescreen | JDesign's Blog

  • http://www.stedesign.com Stedesign

    Take:
    Mobile First + width % + Fittext + em and we can make good websites that works in the future from 320px to 5,000px

  • Pingback: Meri-Lapin museoiden verkkosivuston suunnittelua – kuinka monta eri leiskaa? « Meri-Lapin museot -verkkosivusto… lab 2.0

  • http://www.hortongroup.com/web-design June

    I think we will be seeing many designers going beyond 960 in the future

  • Pingback: 2012年北米でWEB制作者として生きてきた僕にとって絶対に無くては成らなかった英語圏サイト全部! | バンクーバーのうぇぶ屋

  • Pingback: Top 50 Design Blogs 2012 | Neweb

  • Pingback: Top 50 Design Blogs 2012 | Neweb

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design | Web Development, Search Engine Optimization, Social Media Marketing Guru

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design | Lunarium Design

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design « MyPortfolioDesign

  • SP

    First of all, hi-res screens aren’t made to watch websites, they are made for production or to enjoy hi-res movies/images. Not to read websites. I read one here that was sying it looks stupid on his tv. I never use my browser full screen on my hi-res. Rather half screen :)
    I find the 960px still a good benchmark for websites. Honestly I hate it when websites use the full width available. A newspaper or book also stays at certain widths, because it’s simply comfortable to read.
    Only for photographers or movie websites I think of using a higher width grids.
    I don’t like smashing’s new website. I always scale it down on my browser till I see 2 columns. Imagine newspaper websites using the full 2700px of a 27 inch. It’s madness, I tell you :)
    Websites are a joy on tablets. Movies and photos are a joy on hi-res screens. Design for what it is meant to be, not for the screen.

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design - heromind - High quality design resources for graphics and web designer in 2013

  • http://www.facebook.com/tom.estlack Tom Estlack

    Thank you for writing this – There seems to be a push toward avoiding usability when it comes to viewing, reading and human proportions when it comes to the desktop layout. From a professional standpoint, it pisses me off. “Make the Layout Bigger”, so to speak. Layouts have to be ergonomic to be usable.

  • Pingback: REMux: An Experimental Approach to Responsive Web Design | Reme Le Hane

  • http://blog.brownsugar.idv.tw/ Lay

    Great!

  • colorrgrapes

    Thank you for writing this

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.weland John Weland

    I am confused by one point and maybe I am just misinterpreting this. in the section mobile last you are saying to work from big to small but you paint a picture that its easier to work from small to big. Which did you mean?

    • ianyates

      I said that working big to small (desktop down) comes more naturally to us because of the way we’ve always built fixed-width layouts. I then say that it’s worth trying to break that habit because there are so many benefits of working mobile first. Sorry if that wasn’t clear!

  • Toolinfy

    Interesting article. Thank you!

  • Pingback: Week 4 – Grids, Frameworks, Starting Points | Musings of a 21st Century Renaissance Man

  • Todd Swardenski

    I honestly couldn’t tell you the last time I used the 960px grid for a new site. I personally use the 1140px grid and I know Twitter Bootstrap uses an 1170px grid, so I think it’s safe to say that people within the RWD movement are using larger max-widths for their grids. That’s not to say they can’t get bigger than that and go out to ~1300px to fit snuggly within the 1440 laptop resolutions, but I think the previously mentioned grid sizes are exceptional for large monitors and they scale well.

  • Ryan

    Once the zoom property becomes supported in Firefox and Opera, the screen res at which a web site is made will become irrelevant. People will just need to detect the screen size, divide it by the screen size the site was optimized for, and zoom by that number via JS. Not sure how many people realize this right now, though, as it doesn’t seem to be a popular topic out there.

  • Pingback: Aspectos a tener en cuenta en un proyecto web responsive | WordPress Mallorca

  • http://www.facebook.com/greg.cocchiaro Greg Cocchiaro

    Hey there! I really hope I can get a response.

    I absolutely loved this article. I have a 27″ screen and the resolution is so high that website text is often too small for me to read and I have to zoom in. I sit about 18 to 20″ from my monitor so it’s pretty close, and I don’t maximize my browser windows. In fact I have a hard time designing some website because my pixels are so many that when I test on my mom’s older dell laptop with a much lower resolution screen, the websites look SO BIG! Its hard to find that happy medium where text looks good on both.

    What I wanted to ask, though, is that since this article has come out, literally like 3 weeks, the newest smartphones such as the HTC One and Samsung Galaxy S4 have 1080p displays. The actual size of the pixels is so small that a site designed with 960px in mind would actually fit on the display at its native resolution… which would make the font look SO SMALL.

    This begs the question that now that a 1080p display can be 27″ all the way down to 5″ on a smartphone, so even though the number of pixels is the same, the actual pixel itself is smaller on the phone, what can we do about this? Just using the number of pixels as the defining subject of a media query seems like it won’t work anymore because the tiny screen will actually be given the layout you design for a laptop due to having so many pixels…

    I think my logic is correct here and would love some feedback! Thanks so much!

  • Pingback: Weblog Bass Jobsen Twitter Bootstrap 3 breakpoints and grid - Weblog Bass Jobsen

  • Pingback: Best of Tuts+ in June 2012 | Envato Notes