Poll: fixed or variable width content for Engadget?

As of a couple redesigns ago, Engadget's content column has been variable width, meaning the wider your browser, the wider the content. Readers with big widescreen monitors can feel the full effect, but we're also cognizant of the reading issues go along with having too much width, so we've been toying with the idea of going back to a fixed-width layout for the site. What do you think, how wide is wide enough for reading Engadget?

Poll: fixed or variable width content for Engadget?

I'm down with the mega-wide -- leave things as is!I'm into variable width, but it just gets TOO wide. Cut it back some.Bring it down and make it fixed-width, there should still be plenty of room.I really don't care.I only read in RSS -- have you heard of it?Vote

[rock99rock @ May 21st 2008 4:15PM]

Seriously. I know im probably in the smaller market of 2560h res., but seeing this column in the middle of my screen is just wasteful. I can adjust the font size myself :) This is just for firefox though... opera is a different story entirely.

[Shinigami @ May 21st 2008 4:39PM]

Same here, 2560, firefox. And no, I don't see text in the middle, I just resize the window for the best fit (around 1280).
I'm into variable width, but it just gets TOO wide. Cut it back some.
I mean I'd love it to be variable like in 1280 being widest possible. Thats half of my screen, perfect for browsing because no pages are wide enough not to fit in. And I can still put 2 pages side by side comfortably (product comparison).

Yes, it looks horrible when it gets SUPER wide.

[Kuipo @ May 21st 2008 5:02PM]

"...because no pages are wide enough not to fit in."
I bed to differ:
http://worm.bluesfear.com/index.php?content=submissions&action=view

[Eric @ May 21st 2008 5:02PM]

With the 2560 resolution, I am used to resizing my width to a size that is comfortable for reading this site, or any other news site. and by reading , I mean loading up Google Reader and let me fingers to the walking!

[Chris W @ May 21st 2008 5:18PM]

Wider is better. :p
I have a 22" LCD and its not nearly wide enough. You need to add another option to the poll that asks for even wider. Room is being wasted, I should be able to read the equivalent of two pages of print on this thing without having to scroll, but that is not the case.
The less I have to scroll around the better.

[mac404 @ May 21st 2008 5:20PM]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't this be an option as part of your profile settings or a special button/website address so that people can choose which style they prefer. Is it not possible to leave it variable width but provide a fixed-width option?

[teej @ May 21st 2008 6:20PM]

@Chris W,
if it's THAT wide, then the actual article will only take up 25% leaving 75% of comments/ad/etc...so, my point is: why fill 75% of your screen with comments? ...they're all useless and "wasteful."

[Mr. E @ May 21st 2008 6:59PM]

I "only" run at 1920x1200, but isn't the point of widescreen/high res monitors like this so we can have multiple windows open at once? I vote for 800 minimum and either a 1024 or 1280 max width. Il adjust the browser to 1024 so I can keep Engadget up and be working on another project with the rest of my available space.

[low tech @ May 21st 2008 8:35PM]

@teej

I have to disagree with you. For me, the articles are the set-up and the witty comments are the punch line. I'd say a big fraction of all of the humor on the little e comes from the peanut gallery.

[MacMan @ May 26th 2008 8:22AM]

mmm... whilst I don't quite have the luxurious 2600h resolution, I am on a 24" 16:10 and it is terribly small as it is...
Is there any other way to make it more variable, 2 articles beside each other maybe..?

[ugg.tryptophan @ May 21st 2008 4:16PM]

im down w/ variable

[Harkonian @ May 22nd 2008 1:05PM]

Dear Engadget,

After you have finished toying with the variable/fixed column widths could you please, for the love of all things mobile, PLEASE, do some sort of browser detection and stop loading those bloated flash ads if the user is browsing with a mobile device? The site takes a good 3 minutes to load via EDGE, and it's all because of the ads. Yeah, I know there is a mobile specific site, but I prefer the rich content of the full site. Google text ads are your friend.

[rock99rock @ May 21st 2008 4:16PM]

opens mouth. inserts foot. (trys to figure out where i went wrong in life)

[w00t @ May 21st 2008 4:17PM]

It looks just great for me, I never maximize any windows because I like to be doing many things at once and it looks just great as it is.

And since I'm on a Mac hitting maximize only makes it as big as it needs to be to fit all the elements and not a massive page of whitespace so it's still not a problem :)

[Kate @ May 21st 2008 4:21PM]

Don't forget the other end of the spectrum-- people on really small screens!

Fixed width will just mean another page I'll avoid browsing on the eee.

[HighTeckRedNeck @ May 21st 2008 5:25PM]

Yes, absolutely. The variable width makes it possible for me to browse engadget on my libretto!

[EdMercer @ May 22nd 2008 3:05PM]

I browse Engadget at three different widths: 1280 at work, 1440 wide at home and 800 wide on my Eee. Fixed width would really f-up my user experience.

[Bluekkis @ May 21st 2008 4:23PM]

Why should widescreens be a problem? Does someone actually use browser in fullscreen on larger displays?

[Jeff @ May 21st 2008 4:59PM]

Only Windows users - as far as i can tell.

[Felix @ May 21st 2008 6:36PM]

I'm a mac user and I put safari/firefox as wide as they will go. I only leave room for the dock to pop up in.

Whats so hard about expose / apple key+tab?

[huh @ May 21st 2008 4:24PM]

my subnotebook is only 1024x768 so I can't really say. It works ok though.

I wish you'd get rid of the changing feature thing on the upper right though, it's very distracting when trying to actually read content, much like a Flash ad would be if I weren't using Flashblock.

[Jamma @ May 21st 2008 4:26PM]

Use Adblock

[huh @ May 21st 2008 4:33PM]

yeah, I could use Adblock, but do I want to install a passel of utilities and settings for every site I visit? Next there will be counter measures, so I'll have to install AdBlockBlockBlock.

[Splunkster @ May 21st 2008 4:47PM]

Eh, all you have to do is install Adblock and Filterset.g Updater and you'll never see ads again. There is no "passel of utilities and settings" for each site you visit.

Adblock:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/10

Filterset.g Updater:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/1136

Or if you use Safari, just install Safari adblock and you'll never see ads again. Again, no settings to mess with other than just enabling it...
http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/

[huh @ May 21st 2008 4:54PM]

Splunkster, thanks but actually I can't be bothered. Metaphorically it's like putting a bag over someone's head and that's not very nice, plus you put enough bags on the body and what are you left with. I'm not that much enamoured of Engadget, so I'll let the irritations pile up until I stop using the site, or maybe it will get better.

[Ryan Block @ May 21st 2008 5:16PM]

We've recently slowed down the carousel so it should be less distracting. We'll soon be adding a pause button, too.

[huh @ May 21st 2008 5:22PM]

thanks Ryan, I did notice that, and the fact that Engadget editors contribute to (engage in) comments. It the site editors would feel less compelled to make some kind of snarky (and 99% of the time ill informed) "joke" about each posting I'd be less ambivilent about it.

[retro77 @ May 21st 2008 5:26PM]

I think that "carousel" dumped huh off at the wrong stop.

[gymt0nic @ May 21st 2008 4:28PM]

i prefer the old one... Whichever that one is, i cant remember :-/

[MBS @ May 21st 2008 4:27PM]

I don't get it... when I maximize my browser window I get an inch and a half of gray border on each side of the content area. The content never expands to cover the entire width available.

[Esteban @ May 21st 2008 5:11PM]

Variable width means that it only takes up a percentage of the browser width, unlike fixed width, where it takes up a certain number of pixels. If they only made it 90%, it would only take up 90% of the screen. Not the whole screen like you were saying. There is a gap because Engadget doesn't use 100% width.

[MBS @ May 21st 2008 5:54PM]

No I'm saying it's just variable to a certain limit. If you expand (or shrink) your browser width beyond a certain limit the content are does not expand or shrink anymore with it.
So I'm not understanding why they say it's a problem for people with wider monitors, it still never goes wider than a certain width.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 21st 2008 6:11PM]

It's worse for me. It doesn't vary at all. I can expand the window to full-screen width and the text column stays exactly the same. If I make the window narrower than the text column, I get a scroll bar.

So I'm not sure how the the site is "variable width" in any way at all.

Using Firefox on a 1024x768 screen.

[giuliop @ May 21st 2008 4:36PM]

Why not fix the space (or lacking thereof) between the image and the text once and for all? I can't really say whether you're blind or dense... (and no, I don't care what browser you've optimised the site for).

[Christian G @ May 21st 2008 5:45PM]

Just add an option that get saved in a cookie and be done with it.

Right now, it's perfect for me. The ads get clipped out on my Nokia N800. :3 If it gets variable width, I'll have to scroll alot. D:

Why not a variable with limits?

[d @ May 21st 2008 4:44PM]

I agree with this guy. Listen to him, Engadget!

[Joel @ May 21st 2008 4:56PM]

Eh.... Variable width would mean that it fits in your small browser window. Fixed width would be what cause you problems

[caleb @ May 21st 2008 5:36PM]

Unless the fixed width provided some sort of unintended functionality. I dunno. Maybe something like excluded the ads because they get pushed off to the side of the display on his mobile browser.

[ecormany @ May 21st 2008 5:22PM]

CSS max-width property, anyone?

[RevFry @ May 21st 2008 4:42PM]

I see it all in Google Reader. So it doesn't matter much either way.

[OneLove @ May 21st 2008 4:43PM]

I say fix the gallery instead, by putting the ads at the bottom.

[wmspider @ May 21st 2008 4:47PM]

I think the best option is to use variable width with a maximum of, say, 1200px, so people with tiny screens can read it while keeping some structure in wider screens. Im not sure, but i guess that wider than that makes articles look ugly, since they're like 3 lines in height, but extremely wide...
Not sure thou... I guess you'll have to change it (at least for a limited period of time) and then ask the readers...

[zeus9387 @ May 21st 2008 4:47PM]

Isn't there a way that you can make it variable but only up to a certain size?

Maybe that would be an acceptable compromise?

[wmspider @ May 21st 2008 4:51PM]

Yeah, thats what I meant. There is the "max-width" option in css stylesheets.

[MegaZone @ May 21st 2008 5:42PM]

Yes, CSS has max-width - and min-width. So you can create a variable layout and put reasonable limits on it if you want.

[Sirius @ May 22nd 2008 12:53AM]

Ahh.. nice.. someone mentioned it.. that was the first thing I thought of.. then I thought of the poor IE users who have to deal with shoddy CSS support.. then I thought.. hey it's Engadget.. most readers probably use another browser anyway.. then I thought.. the poor people stuck in workplaces that limit you to IE..

I think too much..

tldr: but yea.. max-width is a good compromise imho..

[RadiantGX @ May 22nd 2008 2:26AM]

Here is the solution I think would be best... and its easy to implement...
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/switchymclayout

Its standard and flexible... boo-yah!!!

[Hawkman @ May 22nd 2008 12:35PM]

@RadiantGX: Easy apart from the fact you have to create several different designs and test them all... Plus it won't work properly for anyone who disables javascript.

Engadget works nicely with variable-width pages and a sane maximum width. It'd be a shame to make it fixed-width, because if you made it readable on 1024*xxx the advertisement columns would dwarf the content.

[TavisJohn @ May 21st 2008 4:48PM]

I prefer the variable width setup. When I design a website I try to make it look good and adapt to the size of the browser.

[ethana2 @ May 21st 2008 4:49PM]

Any chance of using my background and foreground colors for the site instead of your own? I'd like that.

....but remember with those, it's both or neither.
(post edits would also be nice)