Page Image Sizing

I would love to see a good answer to that, because this forum does that to me too, as do several others.  Particularly if there is a long url, which instead of wrapping to the next line runs WAY off the screen and takes the rest of the text with it.  Does it on IE6 and Firefox, so it's not the browser.

Is your resolution set to 800x600?  One one site if I went to the next highest it worked right, but then everything is inconveniently squinty-small to read.  This suggests that web designers now consider the higher res to be default, whereas it used to be 800x600.  You know how Americans are, no matter what, they think "more is better". 

The nav panel on the left takes up space.  I blocked it once, and the page became normal width, but sometimes you need it. 

Thanks x_lab rat........I did check the resolution of my screen and it is set on 600 x 800.

I did notice that the Drudge Report and some other pages stayed within the marginal bounds.   As you said, it's probably that set up the websites that have set up the sizing.

I do a lot of graphics including caracture gigs!

Send me your pix to jwebbartist@comcast.net and I'll send you one for free as a thank you!........

Good for you, Trolley.  You're a digital artist, and you still recognize that 'resolution' is not really worth squat unless you're trying to blow stuff up to 8x10 or more on a print.  People take 3MB JPGs with their digital cameras and email them to me.  I sternly lecture them, after I get control of my system back from waiting for it to download over a 600M line.  They don't understand screen resolution or email overhead.

I wish we could get that across to the 'more is better' website designers.  Visible screen resolution never exceeds 800x600, no matter what you set it to or how much they bloat their graphics files.  All Windows 'resolution' settings do is change the size.  The amount of physical space a pixel occupies. 800x600 should be the web standard.  It once was, and it should still be, but it isn't.