What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
33 Comments
- Thuktun, on 06/03/2009, -0/+10"The hacks and conditional comments ruin our clean markup."
The main reason for this in two words: Internet Explorer
You can craft a nice markup-and-CSS website in an afternoon then waste DAYS trying to get it to work properly in Internet Explorer. - chockster, on 06/03/2009, -1/+11Except for when it is.
I've seen so many sites that just expand horizontally as far as you want- that makes the text totally unreadable on a widescreen monitor. People can only comfortably read when they're not having to move their head from left to right. - jugglingjon, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9Not necessarily, fluid websites have their own usability issues. I use a high resolution widescreen monitor, so whenever I view purely fluid websites in a maximized window, I get the text stretched out into these ultra wide, annoying to read paragraphs.
I think that's part of the reason why fluid websites are becoming so rare, you can't account for a high resolution display, while making something readable at more common resolutions. There are exceptions, like a tools including Google maps, where the map fills up the screen; but even that's a hybrid. - mtnboy, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9In the beginning I would've picked fluid. But as my experience grows in the industry, I think Fixed and Semi-Fluid layouts are the best way to go.
- judicar, on 06/03/2009, -0/+7they actually use <sarcasm> tags in the source.
- dave122, on 06/03/2009, -1/+7Fixed is usually right imo.
- UKsHaDoW, on 06/03/2009, -1/+7http://giveupandusetables.com/
I'm a css supporter really. - N01SE, on 06/03/2009, -0/+6Elastic layouts have been replaced by full browser scaling: ctrl+ and ctrl-
true fluid layouts are near to impossible to make look good at all resolutions, it's going to look like a ***** of ***** at some window size. Stick with fixed or semi-fluid like Digg, keep the web beautiful please. - judicar, on 06/03/2009, -1/+6In before the <table> trolls creep out of their caves.
- moothemagiccow, on 06/03/2009, -0/+5fluid layouts dont work on widescreen monitors, and widescreen sales have taken off for some ridiculous reason
- jggube, on 06/03/2009, -3/+8Fixed width is so easy to use, saving you a lot of time and giving you a lot of control over a layout.
- deezeejoey, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4After reading i've decided to f*ck the 800x600 people and made the new site I've been working on for the past 2 weeks from a width of 780 to 960, fixed.
Screw you people with 800x600, it's 2009.
now if you excuse me, i have a lot of work to do now since I've changed my whole site.... - rmxz, on 06/03/2009, -1/+5IMHO the article's observation that people don't have their browsers full screen should favor fluid rather than fixed layouts.
Even (especially) now that I have a higher-res screen, I often have my browser at about half the monitor's size - with something else on the other side. Sites that design for 960 pixel wide are a bit frustrating because I need to carefully make sure my browser's exactly half the screen or more. Sites that design for 1024 pixel wide are just frustrating. - seantubridy, on 06/03/2009, -1/+5Like the article points out (for those who didn't read it), there is no one correct way. You have to consider what the site is about, what kind of content it contains, and who the audience is.
- EMGroup, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4I have found that in today's day and age with wide screen monitors becoming the norm that a semi-fluid layouts are the best.
- alpha88, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3Fixed width by far makes the most sense. Columns of text should never be too wide, and they nearly always will be on widescreen monitors, or large screen resolutions with fluid layouts. Fixed width layouts allow for a nice design, simpler code, and the assurance that your website will look nearly identical on all browsers.
- fwertz, on 06/03/2009, -1/+3I always thought fluid was superior until this article. This was extremely well done.
- Jektal, on 06/03/2009, -10/+12[Are you making an artsy-fartsy webpage?]
..........||..................................................||......
.......[yes]............................................[no]....
..........||..................................................||......
{Fixed-Width}...................................{Fluid}.. - alpha88, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2The elastic layouts in their examples weren't even truely elastic..
- MtheoryX, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2If that single change caused you a lot of work, you're doing it wrong.
- MtheoryX, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2dugg for "***** of *****"
- deezeejoey, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1No i guess now really, it's 2 lines of CSS. It was the image on the front page that now looks funny due to the larger page. So now it was back to photoshopping.
- N01SE, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1Man doesn't that describe some developers though, it's not just a simple transition from tables to css and most developers lose patience when they do it not knowing you have to do dozens of layouts before you get any good at it.
- MtheoryX, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1@Thuktun:
Using a css browser reset, and making sure the code is valid, I rarely have any issues with IE, and the few that I do run into are well-documented and take a single line of code and a conditional stylesheet. - MtheoryX, on 06/03/2009, -1/+2Yeah, I can't imagine why either...
What with nearly every movie being made in a widescreen format, who wants to watch their movie as it was meant to be watched and use all the screen real estate they paid for?
/sarc - ModernGeek, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1Note the section on max-width :)
- ModernGeek, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1I wonder what the deal with the sarcasm tag in the source is all about. You can do almost anything with CSS once you get the hang of it :)
- XkenX87, on 06/03/2009, -1/+1I thought those were all types of workouts.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+1Columns of text can be fixed width without the design being fixed width.
- Narcism, on 06/03/2009, -5/+4Designers like things that they make to always look pretty and sometimes graphics don't allow for a fluid/elastic layout. Users are stupid, and expanding content allows for harder readability.
- NMVK, on 06/03/2009, -1/+0FTA: "Because W3Schools’ visitors primarily belong to a certain demographic (designers and developers), the information is a little biased ... according to resolution statistics from individual companies in 2009, the 800×600 screen resolution showed up at somewhere under 10% of users."
So the 300lb. gorilla in the room is if your target audience is, in fact, designers and developers, you can tell the 800x600 crowd to ***** off. Likewise, if your target audience is not-so-tech-savvy people, stick with a lower resolution design. Basing a site design on 100% of the population and their all-over-the-place statistics is a bad idea. There is no single "correct" choice in either resolution or layout. - holyskeleton, on 06/03/2009, -4/+1the more important question is how to make those layouts.
- inactive, on 06/02/2009, -23/+6Fixed width is never right.
ever.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is