14 Replies Latest reply: Apr 12, 2012 1:07 PM by JimVag1947 RSS

    Lower than 960px;

    JimVag1947 Community Member

      This a site i made some time ago. Something that caught my attention is that given the amount of the content(left lolumn & main content) maybe

       

      it is better if i reduce the overall width of the site which is now at 960px(so as to reduce white space).

       

      So the question is:

       

      Do you think that reducing even more the width(below 960px) is going to be bad from a design point of view?

       

      I mean, can a site, with such a small width can be applealing(in terms of layout)?

       

      Or is there a rule that states "never go under such a width..."?

       

      I do not know, just asking and seeking your opinnion of making a site with the width of the measure described above.

       

      Thanks.

        • 1. Re: Lower than 960px;
          Jacob Bugge MVP

          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.

          • 2. Re: Lower than 960px;
            JimVag1947 Community Member

            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.

            • 3. Re: Lower than 960px;
              JimVag1947 Community Member

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

              • 4. Re: Lower than 960px;
                Jacob Bugge MVP

                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.

                • 5. Re: Lower than 960px;
                  Liam Dilley MVP

                  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.

                  • 6. Re: Lower than 960px;
                    Nancy O. MVP

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

                     

                    Nancy O.

                    • 7. Re: Lower than 960px;
                      JimVag1947 Community Member

                      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.

                      • 8. Re: Lower than 960px;
                        Nancy O. MVP

                        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.

                        • 9. Re: Lower than 960px;
                          Community Member

                          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.

                          • 10. Re: Lower than 960px;
                            JimVag1947 Community Member
                            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.

                            • 11. Re: Lower than 960px;
                              Community Member

                              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.

                              • 12. Re: Lower than 960px;
                                JimVag1947 Community Member

                                Yes you are right in what you are saying.

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

                                 

                                1. 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.
                                2. 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

                                • 13. Re: Lower than 960px;
                                  Nancy O. MVP

                                  JimVag1947,

                                  Before you decide to build a CMS yourself, have a look at these links.  With these products, you're not locked into anything you don't need.

                                   

                                  Get Simple CMS - (open source)

                                  PHP, no database required.

                                  http://get-simple.info/

                                   

                                  Perch - (commercial)

                                  Requires PHP & MySql

                                  http://grabaperch.com/

                                   

                                  e107 CMS - (open source)

                                  Requires PHP & MySql

                                  http://e107.org/

                                   

                                  Content Seed - (commercial)

                                  Available in ASP or PHP, no database required. 

                                  http://contentseed.com/

                                   

                                  WebAssist Power CMS (commercial extension for Dreamweaver)

                                  Requires PHP & MySql

                                  http://www.webassist.com/dreamweaver-extensions/powercms-builder/

                                   

                                  Concrete5 CMS - (open source)

                                  Requires PHP & MySql

                                  http://www.concrete5.org/

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                  Nancy O.

                                  Alt-Web Design & Publishing

                                  Web | Graphics | Print | Media  Specialists 

                                  http://alt-web.com/

                                  • 14. Re: Lower than 960px;
                                    JimVag1947 Community Member

                                    Ok, thanks for the suggestions-anyway, we are way off topic.