Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
The web wasn't designed for graphics, and for the most part still isn't. What made the web revolutionary was the hyperlink and, to this day, it is the web's single most significant and important attribute. But what does it matter what the web was designed for - it wouldn't be what it is today without graphics and all things that make it appealing to humans (that aren't geeks). It wasn't designed for buying and selling because it is stateless and has the memory of a goldfish yet Amazon and Ebay have had a huge impact on it. Its universality is not only defined by its flexibility but also by its appeal. The real revolution was the ability to define a URI - a hyperlink was indeed a magic bullet for web browsers, but the web as it stood back then and nowadays, includes more than just the ability to follow a link. Also, assuming stateful connectivity vs stateless, is completely orthogonal to the ability to purchase something, ie: application code will store application state either on the client or on the server, either technique (or a combination of both) having merit. (you can do print design that is resolution independent - moreso than you can for web browsers). Observation of this assertion is first instance for me. Please elaborate. I design using Adobe Illustrator and create eps files which are vector, not bitmap images. They can, therefore, be printed at any size with zero degradation. I know that modern browsers are designed to support vector images but that's certainly not universally available. The term resolution independent depends on your personal interpretation, often meaning completely different things to different people. Using vector graphics is one method for resolution independence, but that context implies that the width vs height ratio of the page, doesn't change too much - Indeed vector graphics/fonts can allow the width to be adjusted independent of height (within the bounds of readability, eg: squashed-width text ), but it doesn't allow for page-reflow... which is another interpretation of what it means to be resolution independent. I'd be interested in examples of resolution independent (page-reflow) print layout. regards, Mathew Robertson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
To all the above - try not to forget about readabiity of text. That's about 40~65 symbols per line for example. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
On 2010/08/22 12:51 (GMT+0100) Chris Price composed: On 2010/08/22 07:03 (GMT-0400) Felix Miata composed: Sites designed for widths defined in px are not designed for the web, they're designed for resolutions (and thus to exclude comfort and/or usability for those using other resolutions), as print designs are for particular paper, cover or billboard sizes. Conversely, designs styled for the web are resolution independent, working well even when width is below 800px or above 1280px. This sounds a little purist and not particularly practical for many designers. While graphics generated by the css are fluid, images are not so while fonts and html elements may wax and wane at will, graphics designed for the page remain fixed per pixel. The web wasn't designed for graphics, and for the most part still isn't. Images _can_ be sized in em/ex. The degradation they suffer rendered at other than intrinsic size causes no materially different loss of experience than images rendered too small to see the available detail. IOW, an image that's intrinsically 384px by 384px and displayed on the designer's 96 DPI screen will be 4 by 4. On my 192 DPI screen with browser default size set to 32px it will be 2 by 2, which is 1/4 size, and much too small to tell me much compared to the 4 times larger display on the 96 DPI screen. If OTOH, CSS specified that same image to be 6em tall by 6em wide, and specified all other sizes in em, then the image would display 4 by 4 on both the designer's screen and my screen. On his all the expected detail would be preserved, and all the layout totally as he intended. On mine too would the layout remain totally as he intended, with the image proportionally the same size to the layout, and also 4 by 4, just with poorer detail, but only if the image was exactly the same image. If OTOH the image was one less optimized/compacted in the first place, one intended for use by the higher DPI screens that are already common, then there wouldn't be material degradation, and possibly none at all, depending on the image itself and the browser engine rendering it. You can't say that pages designed for widths are not designed for the web. I sure do. If a page is designed to look good in a web browser it is designed for the web. Not at all. CSS came along well after the web. Before it and font came along, inherent adaptability and usability could not be destroyed by the page designer's artificial constraints. It wasn't about looking good, it was about universal availability and adaptability. That is the inherent web still. Anything constraining the web's inherent adaptability is pretending to be for something else instead, and simply hosted on the web for its ubiquitous availability only - absent universality. Sizing in px is top of the heap in that regard, as it totally ignores the user's environment and preferences. (you can do print design that is resolution independent - moreso than you can for web browsers). Observation of this assertion is first instance for me. Please elaborate. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
On 22 August 2010 16:03, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2010/08/22 12:51 (GMT+0100) Chris Price composed: On 2010/08/22 07:03 (GMT-0400) Felix Miata composed: The web wasn't designed for graphics, and for the most part still isn't. What made the web revolutionary was the hyperlink and, to this day, it is the web's single most significant and important attribute. But what does it matter what the web was designed for - it wouldn't be what it is today without graphics and all things that make it appealing to humans (that aren't geeks). It wasn't designed for buying and selling because it is stateless and has the memory of a goldfish yet Amazon and Ebay have had a huge impact on it. Its universality is not only defined by its flexibility but also by its appeal. Not at all. CSS came along well after the web. Before css matured we were slaves to tables. My web pages have no tables where there is no tabular information, no styling, no javascript just pure html as the web intended. However I code to XHTML 1.0 which came after css. (you can do print design that is resolution independent - moreso than you can for web browsers). Observation of this assertion is first instance for me. Please elaborate. I design using Adobe Illustrator and create eps files which are vector, not bitmap images. They can, therefore, be printed at any size with zero degradation. I know that modern browsers are designed to support vector images but that's certainly not universally available. -- Chris Price 0777 629 0227 follow me at http://twitter.com/hypergossip_uk and http://facebook.com/chris.t.price *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
On 8/18/10 6:14 PM, Lyn Smith wrote: Good morning Was wondering what the latest opinions are on using fixed width or liquid design in light of the ever increasing size of monitor screens. [...] It seems to me, going by the sites I have frequented of late, that many seem to favour fixed width of 900-1000px which requires scrolling for 800x600 resolutions but don't look too bad whatever the higher size of screen and resolution. Hi Lyn, As your other replies note, there are several ways of going about this. FWIW I use another technique, based on a fixed 960px wide layout, but with all structural widths in percents. (Useful for me, as I think in terms of proportion, not pixels.) By applying a max-width: 100% to the 960px wide wrapper, I get a squishy design that seems to work well on narrower windows. As noted earlier, IE 6 does not do min-width nor max-width, but I reckon IE 6 users can live with that... For the benefit of wide screens, a large background image or a pattern may look nicer than a plain color. YMMV. P.S. I read Zoe Gillenwater's excellent book, Flexible Web Design for many other ideas: http://www.flexiblewebbook.com/ Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
I prefer liquid layouts, but I use a max-width property to control how wide my content is allowed to get. *Ben Davies* On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Lyn Smith l...@westernwebdesign.com.auwrote: Good morning Was wondering what the latest opinions are on using fixed width or liquid design in light of the ever increasing size of monitor screens. Having just got a new computer with a 24 screen, I was not happy with the look of some of my liquid design sites. While they are OK in screen resolutions up to 1280, above that, they seem too stretched out. One in particular had a couple of lines of text which went from one side of the screen to the other - not a good look. It seems to me, going by the sites I have frequented of late, that many seem to favour fixed width of 900-1000px which requires scrolling for 800x600 resolutions but don't look too bad whatever the higher size of screen and resolution. -- Lyn Smith www.westernwebdesign.com.au Affordable website design Perth WA *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Ben Davies wrote: I prefer liquid layouts, but I use a max-width property to control how wide my content is allowed to get. That's what I do, too. On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Lyn Smith l...@westernwebdesign.com.auwrote: Good morning Was wondering what the latest opinions are on using fixed width or liquid design in light of the ever increasing size of monitor screens. Having just got a new computer with a 24 screen, I was not happy with the look of some of my liquid design sites. While they are OK in screen resolutions up to 1280, above that, they seem too stretched out. One in particular had a couple of lines of text which went from one side of the screen to the other - not a good look. It seems to me, going by the sites I have frequented of late, that many seem to favour fixed width of 900-1000px which requires scrolling for 800x600 resolutions but don't look too bad whatever the higher size of screen and resolution. -- Lyn Smith www.westernwebdesign.com.au Affordable website design Perth WA *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com Author: Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
Thanks everyone - the media queries look interesting and I will definitely take on max-width. -- Lyn Smith www.westernwebdesign.com.au Affordable website design Perth WA *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
Lyn, If you need to cover IE6 then you might need to make adjustments as it does not recognise max-width. I think the Dean Edwards JavaScript solution helps here. Regards, Grant Bailey -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Lyn Smith Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:30 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ? Thanks everyone - the media queries look interesting and I will definitely take on max-width. -- Lyn Smith www.westernwebdesign.com.au Affordable website design Perth WA *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Current thinking on fixed width/liquid design ?
Lyn Smith wrote: Was wondering what the latest opinions are on using fixed width or liquid design in light of the ever increasing size of monitor screens. Media Quires [1] [2] seems to open some doors [if not windows]... [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/ [2] http://www.slideshare.net/maxdesign/css3-media-queries Best, ~d -- :: desktop and mobile :: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
