Adobe Community: Lower than 960px;

Currently Being Moderated

1. Jacob Bugge,

Mar 9, 2012 3:30 PM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

Dimitris,

You may consider a floating design where the total width is relative rather than fixed, 100%. You may have elements with relative widths adding up to 100%, or fixed width elements within the overall 100% relative width.

Exactly how depends on which elements you decide to use.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

2. JimVag1947,

Mar 12, 2012 1:33 AM in reply to Jacob Bugge

Report

Well, jacob.

I saw your answer but the point is not really that.

I will try to be more specific by adapting somehow what i mean, in your example.

Ok, suppose i use a float design(100% etc),at some point due to the folating nature of the site, the overall widht might fall below 900px.

So a site below 900px can it be still appealling(aesthetically) or you think it becomes very much narrow? Try to focus on this last sentence Jacob.

Thanks.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

3. JimVag1947,

Mar 12, 2012 3:40 AM in reply to Jacob Bugge

Report

I have found many great-lookingn websites having less than 960px width-so it seems there is no problem with that.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

4. Jacob Bugge,

Mar 12, 2012 10:36 AM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

Dimitris,

Based on a (re)reading with more focus, I agree. I apologize for the more floating perception.

In my opinion, a site that is narrower than the screen looks best if centred (horizontally so there is an equal amount of space on either side).

Ok, suppose i use a float design(100% etc),at some point due to the folating nature of the site, the overall widht might fall below 900px.

Indeed, but only when viewed on a screen (available portion) narrower than 900px.

|

Mark as:

4,232 posts
Feb 28, 2012

Currently Being Moderated

5. Liam Dilley,

Mar 27, 2012 2:26 PM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

Responsive and Adaptive Webdesign is what web designers should be implementing, exploring and working with.

http://www.lullabot.com/articles/responsive-adaptive-web-design

You can see a great example in the new Smashing Magazine website here:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/

Check that out on the ipad or iphone or just scale the browser window down.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

6. Nancy O.,

Apr 1, 2012 1:22 PM in reply to Liam Dilley

Report

Smashing Magazine is a WordPress site. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Nancy O.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

7. JimVag1947,

Apr 2, 2012 4:15 AM in reply to Nancy O.

Report

I know i am getting off topic with what i am going to ask but I am tempted to do so.

What is your opinion when it comes to CMS?

Custom CMS or wordpress/joomla and whatever else is out there?

I am making this question because i am taking advantage of the fact that Nancy mentioned that smashingmagazine is wordpress and by the fact

that i am building a site this period(for myself) that is not base in any kind of CMS found in the web.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

8. Nancy O.,

Apr 2, 2012 10:44 AM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

If you're building the site for yourself and you like to use Dreamweaver, you probably don't need a CMS site.

CMS is good for clients who can't use Dreamweaver but want to be able to update their site themselves.

CMS is also ideal for groups in collaborative settings where multiple contributors can log-in and add/edit content.

Which CMS you use depends on a) your coding skills, b) budget, c) features needed.

Nancy O.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

9. Marian Driscoll,

Apr 3, 2012 6:19 AM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

JimVag1947 wrote:

...Nancy mentioned that smashingmagazine is wordpress...

Further, Lullabot is a Drupal site. CMS is taking over.

I don't know what type of site you are making but a database-driven site are the only sites that I visit anymore. I cannot name a single static site that is of use to me. Along with the different technology, there is also a different mindset for the web author. An easily edited CMS often has more active/fresher content.

To get back on topic but still discuss CMS...

JimVag1947 wrote:

...the site which is now at 960px(so as to reduce white space)...

A CMS relies on templates/themes to make redesign so much easier. We initially separated content from style by introducing CSS. We can further that separation by separating that content in a CMS database. That separation makes it easier to create multiple designs for various screen displays. You can use the same content to design right now for a 480px mobile device, a standard 960px desktop, and a higher desktop resolution to be standard in a few years.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

10. JimVag1947,

Apr 8, 2012 11:26 PM in reply to Marian Driscoll

Report

I don't know what type of site you are making but a database-driven site are the only sites that I visit anymore. I cannot name a single static site that is of use to me. Along with the different technology, there is also a different mindset for the web author. An easily edited CMS often has more active/fresher content.

.

I am surely building a db-driven a site, and I am building a cms, so it is custom, no joonla or other open source cms?

I chose to do a custom CMS because I want to have a complete "freedom" in what i can do and of course beacuse it is for me and not for a client.

Since this is a site for a web app it must be made with custom features, an open source provides things that for such a project i just do not need.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

11. Marian Driscoll,

Apr 9, 2012 6:14 AM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

I think that you might be confusing something. You are completely free to modify an open source, open licensed CMS. Open source is what gives you complete freedom.

Open source allows you to build on the knowledge and experience of many others. You will not need to reinvent the wheel. Creating your own CMS requires a lot more effort. Inexperienced developers will likely leave a lot more security holes than their open source counterparts.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

12. JimVag1947,

Apr 9, 2012 7:55 AM in reply to JimVag1947

Report

Yes you are right in what you are saying.

reaching in the decision to make a CMS from scratch was based on 2 things.

90% of the functionality of a CMS(such as Joomla-since this is the CMS I) is useless for the site i am making, that figure maybe exaggerated, 10% is things like authentication.
I do not want anyone figure out that the site is based on Joomla or other CMS-I do that for security reasons. Of course you told me that the developers of an open-source CMS have already adressed that issue. Well, if I could conceal somehow(and completely if possible) the fact that the site is based on Joomla it would be great, but i do not know if this is possible at all, in which case I build a CMS from scratch but with the drawback that I might miss something.

What do you think? There are 2 paths here, and the decisive factor is security. Point 1 is secondary.

Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment, fortunately, this site is for me and there is no any time constraint.

Message was edited by: JimVag1947