What resolution do you view T2W in? And do you prefer fixed or full width websites?

What resolution do you view T2W in? And do you prefer fixed or full width websites?

  • 800 x 600 pixels

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • 1024 x 768 pixels

    Votes: 29 51.8%
  • 1152 x 864 pixels

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • 1280 x 1024 pixels

    Votes: 12 21.4%
  • Other resolution, please specify in thread

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • I prefer fixed width websites

    Votes: 9 16.1%
  • I prefer full-screen width websites

    Votes: 15 26.8%

  • Total voters


A poll to determine what screen resolution members typically view the website in.

In the past we've always ensured the site is viewable in screen resolutions of 800x600 and above (ie. you need to scroll horizontally to view the page - unless of course someone posts a great bit chart!).

As both crt and flastscreen monitors become cheaper, should we aim to support the more widely 1024x768 screen and thereby make better use of the screen real estate?
Hi Paul

i'm a 1600x1200 man myself but always view web sites in a 1024x768 browser window.


could you be more spcific about what you mean by
fixed width v full screen

what do we have now ?
fixed width ?
seems to vary with width of chart, so is it a bit of both ?

left hand column takes up a lot of space ?

that avatar stuff and members details get printed with
every single posting.

could some be dropped, converted to a one line summary
and shown at the top of a post across the page ?
not sure about all the terminology, but i use 1024x768, and really get cheesed off when i have to scroll accross to right to read text because some charts have been too wide.... there r some people who regularly post charts therefore ensuring this regulalry has to be done.

as a suggestion, if nothing can be done about this, perhaps you can ensure posts without chart attachment are limited to a certain width. There are some posts where the user always presses return after a few words... these are easier to read...
...use 1600 X 1200 settings on 21 inch with .25 dot pitch...

full width would be preferable as it will presumably autoadjust the width if the open window is resized and text would word wrap...
I should have added 1600 x 1200, never realised it was so popular.

In terms of fixed width and full width websites, what I mean is that T2W is fixed width in the sense that what ever the size of your browser window the width of the content of the website is fixed at about 750 pixels. So if you viewed the site on a gigantic 21 inch monitor at 1600x1200 the width of the content would remain the same, but you'd of course be able to see more vertically, but the site I'm sure would appear very small in comparison with the size of the monitor.

You're right bonsai, although we are at a fixed width, when someone posts a particularly large image the only thing that can happen is it stretched the fixed width to accomodate the image. In web design, you simply can't crop an image or resize on the fly, without some real effort - and you're probably wouldn't want to.

An interesting point is that in terms of reading legibility a word lengeth of about 12 words per line, is about optimal. Any more and you lose which line you're reading, and less and you eyes are constantly dancing across the page.

But with a full width screen you can also increase the font size which would make the writing more readable on a larger monitor - I dread to think of those members who have to squint to read the writing on their huge monitors.

To get an idea of full width websites here are a few financial ones that really are full width:


Here are ones that may appear full screen (since the header is fullscreen) but if you look at the actual content (the body of the website), they're also fixed width:


And these are fixed-widths (although some may be centred or aligned to the left):

do you mean we would have to change the font size in IE ?
everytime we were in t2w but change back for other sites ?

uurrgghh !

perhaps I got that wrong ?
I have taken a screen print of your existing format excluding
the outside borders and it appears you are using 800x600
for the visible board pages.

My resolution is set to 1024x768 which means I can view
every page here and still see parts of the windows of other
program which are running.

I would not like to have your pages fill my screen, to be able to read them, if it meant I had to block out those other windows.

So its not so much a matter of what resolution I use as
what effect yours has on what I can see.
I would always need a resolution greater than whatever you use.

So I have voted for 800x600 and if others have the same issue
I would suggest they do the same.

On the occasion when someone posts a chart which is bigger than 800x600 then that is a one click job to expand your window
and a one click job to restore it. No real problem.

Paul, I hope you can take this into account.
Last edited:
Thanks bonsai,

However the vote is not which you would prefer, it's was resolution your monitor is that you view T2W in. All the same I take your point that you can view it in your browser in an 800x600 window even if you're running at 1024x768.

No you wouldn't have to change the font size each time you switched between T2W - that would be really annoying!

You can however have a resizeable screen that works from 800x600 upwards (and this is perhaps the best compromise), hence you can reduce to 800 x 600 window if you want to see others screens behind it or you can expand to take up the whole screen, the choice is yours - you won't lose out either way.

The reason for enquiring about sizes, and fixed/variable widths, is because I'll be incorporating this feedback in the next version of the website that I'm currently starting work on.
well, whatever is best for the site is ok with me.
as long as I can read the full width of a standard page (like this one) without it filling my screen, it should be ok.