Target Screen Size for Web Design

Most new screens are HD resolution. These screens are very wide to be a target width for web page design. Instead, many websites still target a minimum width of 1024 pixels. The IBM XGA display was 1024x768 pixels, and nobody has seen an XGA monitor for decades. Never the less, I am thrilled that the de facto standard has survived for one simple reason. I like using three monitors. I have a 1920x1200 monitor in the middle and two 1280x1024 monitors on the sides. The latter are in portrait mode, so they are 1024 pixels wide. They are perfect for viewing most web pages.

Occasionally, I want to see four windows, so I split the large middle screen. Microsoft Windows supports "gestures", that lets you perform certain actions. If you jam a window against the top of the screen, for example, it maximizes on that screen. If you jam the window against the left or right side of the screen, it fills the left or right half of the screen. On the middle of the screen, there is no left or right. (The pointer moves to the next screen.) Instead, you can use Windows-Left and Windows-Right to get the same effect.

It's useful to split the big screen. The problem is that HD divided by two is 1920 / 2 = 960, which is slightly less than 1024, the target width for most websites. It means that you can't see a full web page most of the time.

I propose that website designers no longer target 1024 pixels width, but instead target 960 pixels width. It's 6% fewer pixels, which will make negligible difference in practice, and it will allow two full web pages side-by-side on an HD screen.

HP - Best Service Ever! - NOT

I wrote the following glowing report based on what HP said they would do. Turns out my little mistake completely scrambled their system. They still have my working unit, and I still have the broken one. Now we need to place a third order because they canceled the first order. I have no idea what happened, except that the representative whom I spoke highly about below appears to have made a messy situation even worse.

---

I bought HP Folio 13 notebook computers for my kids. I started buying the first. The price was really good because it was refurbished. I chose this model because of the good price and the SSD, which makes a computer run much, much faster. My daughter liked it so much that I bought a second one for my son. They have been working really well for both kids.

One day my wife needed a notebook computer. I've had good luck with these, so I bought a third. This unit worked well for a few months. She was quite happy with it. Then it turned into a brick. No lights at all.

According to the HP site, the unit is still under warranty, which is not something I had considered. That's excellent! I called HP. They placed a repair order and sent me a box with prepaid shipping. It would take about a week for them to receive it, fix it, and return it to me. All at no cost to me! That's excellent service. I shipped the unit 10 days ago, so where is it?

To my dismay, my son's unit stopped working 2 days after I sent off the first unit. Exactly the same symptoms. Hmm. Maybe there is a design flaw. His is also under warranty, so I am going to file a second repair order. I just haven't gotten around to it.

Today I received a call from HP. Apparently the unit they received has a serial number that does not match the repair order. It didn't take us long to realize that I sent in the wrong unit. My son must have switched them somehow! And, no, there isn't a design flaw. We didn't have two units die in the same time frame with exactly the same symptoms!

I'm thinking, this is our mistake. I'll have HP return the one unit, and I'll have to pay for shipping for the other unit. Instead he says, as long as they have that one, they should check it out to make sure it's performing properly. Then they'll return it. As well, he is placing another repair order for the broken one. Wow! That is excellent service! My mistake, and they still fix it without charging me.

I will buy HP from now on.