18 replies [Last post]
durdledoor
Offline
Regular
Oxfordshire, England
Last seen: 14 years 15 weeks ago
Oxfordshire, England
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-07-22
Posts: 44
Points: 0

Afternoon All

I actually posted a couple of weeks ago to ask about the different resolutions that people are using. It seems that most do not use 800 px, but my boss has made the decision that we have to cater for those who do.

In looking at web sites that are catering to 800 * 600 and have a fixed width site, I've noted that they do not set the width to 800, but set it to anything from 740 - 780. Could somebody please let me know why this is? I've done a google search but couldn't find the answer. Would there be anything wrong with setting the width to 795?

Thanks very much for any replies, and thanks for last time as well

Daniel

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

durdledoor wrote:I actually

durdledoor wrote:
I actually posted a couple of weeks ago to ask about the different resolutions that people are using. It seems that most do not use 800 px, but my boss has made the decision that we have to cater for those who do.

Fixed width sites are outdated and no longer best practice if they ever were. They just annoy people.

If your page won't work at pretty well any screen resolution or portal size you are driving visitors away. Why would you want to do that if you could avoid it? And you can.

CSS allows you to design for any width, and you should learn how to do that and design for that.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

durdledoor
Offline
Regular
Oxfordshire, England
Last seen: 14 years 15 weeks ago
Oxfordshire, England
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-07-22
Posts: 44
Points: 0

Ed, maybe your right and my

Ed, maybe your right and my next project will be fluid.

However, for this one the decision has been made, so I need to do fixed width for 800px.

It will be helpful if someone could explain why those that do use fixed width don't go all the way to 800.

Thanks for the reply and reproof Ed, I'll catch up sometime soon!

rmfred
rmfred's picture
Offline
Elder
Rock Springs, WY
Last seen: 3 years 16 weeks ago
Rock Springs, WY
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2004-01-31
Posts: 1073
Points: 31

durdledoor wrote:Ed, maybe

durdledoor wrote:
Ed, maybe your right and my next project will be fluid.

However, for this one the decision has been made, so I need to do fixed width for 800px.

It will be helpful if someone could explain why those that do use fixed width don't go all the way to 800.

Thanks for the reply and reproof Ed, I'll catch up sometime soon!
Fixed width at less than 800px... I use 760-770px takes into account the width scrollbars take up so there is no horz scrolling.

ED:

Quote:
Fixed width sites are outdated and no longer best practice if they ever were. They just annoy people.

I personally prefer fixed over fluid... got any stats to support your statement? Just curious.

durdledoor
Offline
Regular
Oxfordshire, England
Last seen: 14 years 15 weeks ago
Oxfordshire, England
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-07-22
Posts: 44
Points: 0

Thanks for the the reply

Thanks for the the reply RMFred

Can I just ask, do you need to knock off 40 or 30 pixels to account for horizontal scrollbars? Is that not a generous amount of space?

Thanks for replying

Ed was very strong with his views against fixed width. One thing I can say is that many 'major' sites seem to go for it, for example the new 'wired' redesign actually has a fixed width of 1000 pixels.

rmfred
rmfred's picture
Offline
Elder
Rock Springs, WY
Last seen: 3 years 16 weeks ago
Rock Springs, WY
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2004-01-31
Posts: 1073
Points: 31

I've found anything wider

I've found anything wider that 770px causes horz scroll at 800 res... no hard and fast rule that I know of, just experimenting with different width designs.

wolfcry911
wolfcry911's picture
Offline
Guru
MA, USA
Last seen: 7 years 47 weeks ago
MA, USA
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-09-01
Posts: 3224
Points: 237

Ed, I'll have to disagree

Ed, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. They certainly are not outdated and I don't think they annoy that many people. I'll agree that an elastic site may be better, but would disagree that a liquid site is best. Readability seriously degrades as line length increases (over reasonable values).

ragamuffin
ragamuffin's picture
Offline
Leader
Iowa
Last seen: 12 years 45 weeks ago
Iowa
Joined: 2005-06-02
Posts: 691
Points: 0

Ed, I think you are

Ed,

I think you are speaking opinion more than you are fact. There are pros and cons to both liquid layout and fixed width sites. To say fixed width is outdated is inaccurate.

Here are a couple of sources that speak on the matter:
http://adactio.com/journal/980
http://www.yourtotalsite.com/archives/xhtml_css/liquid_vs_fixed/Default.aspx
http://www.clagnut.com/blog/269/
http://www.mcu.org.uk/showlog.php?weblogid=15

- r

Chris..S
Chris..S's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 9 years 18 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-02-22
Posts: 6078
Points: 173

Durdledoor, set your screen

Durdledoor, set your screen resolution to 800 x 600, fire up IE, take a screenshot, (set your resolution back according to your preference Smile), open up the screen shot and measure the useable screen width.

On the fixed width v variable width thing. I personally prefer fixed width. I may change my mind if a reasonable variable column solution existed. I don't mind scanning down several columns, but I do find superwide columns annoying.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 7 years 2 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

760px is the de-facto

760px is the de-facto eponymous default width that you generally see when looking at fixed width layouts as it suits 800×600 allowing a bit of room to breath and accounting for browser artefacts.

Fully fluid layouts while seeming attractive in principle and commendable in theory, more often than not tend not to work to some degree.

You have to fill a lot of canvas area even at relatively small high res screens such as 1280×1024 yet the eye can only scan so much with comfort. If you want to box clever you design in fluid aspects to the layout yet where the guts of the layout are concerned the actual content you try and ensure that that works at a min-width of ~760px and a max width ~1024 or something similar.

By and large though most of the time I have designed tricky layouts in terms of utilizing browser canvas it has come back to ensuring that primarily it looks good at 760px and then working out what to do with a canvas that's full screen *yuck* at high res. something designers can never take into account as they work in their fixed rigid world of pixels and always seem to design at 1024

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

durdledoor wrote:Ed was very

durdledoor wrote:
Ed was very strong with his views against fixed width. One thing I can say is that many 'major' sites seem to go for it, for example the new 'wired' redesign actually has a fixed width of 1000 pixels.

Jillions of sites still use tables for layout, but that doesn't make them right. My opinion remains unchanged and I think it is becoming more and more important to design flexible sites because now so many are browsing from cell phones and PDAs. On the other hand, my tag line is there for a reason...

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

ragamuffin wrote:I think you

ragamuffin wrote:
I think you are speaking opinion more than you are fact.

Well it is my opinion that fixed width designs are in fact out of date. But my tag line is there to point up the fact that I am always posting an opinion.

Quote:
To say fixed width is outdated is inaccurate.

That's your opinion, which I suppose carries at least as much weight as mine. Many of the objections to my position though, seem to me to come from misconceptions of what "fluid" design does and doesn't mean. You can have nice wide screen gutters on each side and still have a flexible design, for example. Nor does fluid design mean that nothing is fixed. That's not really possible on a web site that uses images that are maybe 99% of fixed widths.

And also it isn't just black and white either/or - there are gradiations. But on a media where anyone can enlarge your text instantly I find that most of the fixed-width designs I go to fail pretty badly on text resizes which I often need because of my weak eyes.

Please to note tag line below...

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

wolfcry911 wrote:Ed, I'll

wolfcry911 wrote:
Ed, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. They certainly are not outdated and I don't think they annoy that many people. I'll agree that an elastic site may be better, but would disagree that a liquid site is best. Readability seriously degrades as line length increases (over reasonable values).

Nothing about the kind of flexible or fluid designs I prefer prevent one from keeping one's text readably short. Lines of text that are too long to read easily are just bad design, surely.

You seem to make distinctions between "flexible" and "fluid" designs that I don't catch. I sort of use these words interchangeably, myself.

I still think fixed-width designs are out of date, but as the tagline says...

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

SuperRoach
SuperRoach's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Ballarat
Last seen: 10 years 20 weeks ago
Ballarat
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2007-02-26
Posts: 291
Points: 6

im 50/50

from a design standpoint, its just so much easier to design for a fixed width design.

Also, fixed width doesn't mean clunky - you can have tiled backgrounds etc to stop it from looking garish, and you

It will take a radical change in the way of thinking to alter that really, as fluid means complex coding.

there are advantages to a fluid site that I love which is often overlooked though, which is it scales well to portable devices.

re doing a 800 x 600 screen res site, just either goto browser shots and get a ss of ie, and see what screen dimensions joe blow has Wink

ClevaTreva
ClevaTreva's picture
Offline
Guru
A hilly place, UK
Last seen: 3 years 12 weeks ago
A hilly place, UK
Joined: 2004-02-05
Posts: 2902
Points: 0

I take the view that it is

I take the view that it is the content that determines the width issue.

The content is there not for me, as a designer, but for the visitor. So, I ask myslef, what would best serve the needs of the visitor? Sometimes, it is fixed width, sometimes full width. Someimes full width with a max and min width set.

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 8 years 26 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

For what it's worth, I

For what it's worth, I continue to design websites at a fixed width of 760px and I don't consider myself to be out-of-touch, outdated or to promote 'bad practice'. Being both a designer and a developer, I understand the value of perfectly balanced design in respect of the visual communication of subconscious messages - which affects trust, professional image and ultimately sales with a contribution to the success or failure of a business. I still allow for the user changing font sizes without breaking the layout, but my 'default' designs are deliberately controlled to say the right thing to the right people without having to spend at least twice as long building the layout (for no extra reward) such that it will still look okay in a 1600px browser window.

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

ragamuffin
ragamuffin's picture
Offline
Leader
Iowa
Last seen: 12 years 45 weeks ago
Iowa
Joined: 2005-06-02
Posts: 691
Points: 0

Ed Seedhouse wrote:That's

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
That's your opinion, which I suppose carries at least as much weight as mine.

It's really not an opinion, because there is 'fact' to back up my statement. Just curious, do you have sources that back up your claim? If you don't, it is just an opinion, but, nonetheless, I respect you for strongly holding to that opinion. I , however, will have to agree with roytheboy on this one.

- r

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

ClevaTreva wrote:I take the

ClevaTreva wrote:
I take the view that it is the content that determines the width issue.

The content is there not for me, as a designer, but for the visitor. So, I ask myslef, what would best serve the needs of the visitor? Sometimes, it is fixed width, sometimes full width. Someimes full width with a max and min width set.

I agree 100%. I suppose it is possible that some content just cries out for a fixed width presentation and if so, then fixed width it should be.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 49 weeks 3 hours ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

ragamuffin wrote:Just

ragamuffin wrote:
Just curious, do you have sources that back up your claim? If you don't, it is just an opinion

Well, having sources doesn't make an opinion into a fact. Sources often disagree with each other and you have then to decide which, in your opinion, is most reliable. But take a look at the Truth and Consequences of Web Design site, which I'd say generally provides evidence that supports my opinion. Or rather my opinion was largely formed based on reading that site and similar ones.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.