-
1. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 7:43 PM (in response to pbsum83)Resolution is not the critical issue. Browser viewport width is. To make
your decision you need to have some ideas about the following issues -
1. What is the primary target demographic for this site?
2. What are the browsing habits of that demographic? Do they normally have
their browser window maximized on the screen?
3. If they usually have their browser maximized, what is the typical screen
width?
4. If they usually do NOT have their browser maximized, what is the MINIMUM
screen width in that demographic.
5. How do I want to build the page?
a. Fixed width and left aligned?
b. Fixed width and centering?
c. Flexible to fill whatever width from left to right?
d. Flexible (within limits) and left aligned?
e. Flexible (within limits) and centering?
As you can see, this decision is probably much more complex than you
thought, and will require that you know quite a bit about your intended
target visitor and their browsing habits.
If you elect to go with 5a, or 5b, then your decision would be - 'what is
the mimimum browser width I want to support without horizontal scrolling?'.
Once you have determined that minimum supported width, all of your decisions
are made. That's how wide you want your page to be.
If you elect to go with 5c, then you just build your page within a flexible
container (the simplest example - although an obsolet one - would be to use
a 100% width table to hold the entire page). Be aware that pages with
limited text content can look VERY sparse and empty on wide viewports when
built in this way.
If you elect to go with 5d, or 5e, then you would add this sophistication to
your decision matrix -
'what is the greatest width I want to allow the page and its contents to
become?'
In this case, you would use the CSS styles - 'min-width' and 'max-width' on
the primary page container. Just so you'll know, although these styles are
well supported *now*, earlier versions of IE (and some other browsers) will
not support them so reliably.
So - which is it? 8)
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"paul" <E-mail Hidden> wrote in message
news:gac1fe$jnt$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hello,
>
> I made the mistake of designing a site layout for my own resolution (1280
> X
> 1024) and I am finding out many of my visitors have a resolution of 1024 x
> 765.
> This obviously makes everything appear much larger w/ scroll bars, etc.,
> which
> I do not want.
>
> What is the best way to go about shrinking my layout to suit a smaller
> resolution (1024 x 765)? Are there any tricks or hints anybody can
> suggest?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
Message was edited by: Sudarshan Thiagarajan
-
2. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
SnakEyez02 Sep 11, 2008 2:26 PM (in response to pbsum83)If there are areas that expand (ie: a blog which grows down), then just don't make it grow as far.
If it is a width issue, this is definitely something that needs to be worked out in Photoshop or Fireworks because you don't just want to make it smaller if it condenses too much because then you run into issues with items becoming too condensed to be recognized. -
3. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 11, 2008 2:33 PM (in response to pbsum83)> What is the best way to go about shrinking my layout to suit a smaller
> resolution (1024 x 765)?
You really need to redesign the site to accommodate it.
Remember that resolution of the screen isn't necessarily the main issue,
it's the resolution of the web browser...which can be almost anything.
Also, don't forget that for every big monitor out there (30" cinema display)
there's also likely a small one too (iPhone)
-Darrel
-
4. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:54 PM (in response to pbsum83)There is no way to cater to every possible situation out there, but 960px
(wide) is a safe compromise for run-of-the-mill sites these days.
L. Babarabatibiri
[name removed by host] <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:gac1fe$jnt$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hello,
>
> I made the mistake of designing a site layout for my own resolution (1280
> X
> 1024) and I am finding out many of my visitors have a resolution of 1024 x
> 765.
> This obviously makes everything appear much larger w/ scroll bars, etc.,
> which
> I do not want.
>
> What is the best way to go about shrinking my layout to suit a smaller
> resolution (1024 x 765)? Are there any tricks or hints anybody can
> suggest?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
-
5. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:55 PM (in response to pbsum83)Depends on your target demographic, of course.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"babarabatibiri" [email address removed by host] wrote in message
news:gadjiv$csk$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> There is no way to cater to every possible situation out there, but 960px
> (wide) is a safe compromise for run-of-the-mill sites these days.
>
> L. Babarabatibiri
>
>
> [name removed by host] <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
> news:gac1fe$jnt$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I made the mistake of designing a site layout for my own resolution (1280
>> X
>> 1024) and I am finding out many of my visitors have a resolution of 1024
>> x 765.
>> This obviously makes everything appear much larger w/ scroll bars, etc.,
>> which
>> I do not want.
>>
>> What is the best way to go about shrinking my layout to suit a smaller
>> resolution (1024 x 765)? Are there any tricks or hints anybody can
>> suggest?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>
-
6. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 4:43 AM (in response to pbsum83).oO(babarabatibiri)
>There is no way to cater to every possible situation out there
But you can come close.
>but 960px
>(wide) is a safe compromise for run-of-the-mill sites these days.
A flexible layout works better.
Always.
Micha -
7. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 5:48 AM (in response to pbsum83)
"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:gadk1l$d8g$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Depends on your target demographic, of course.
>
It also depends on whether you actually have any of that target demographic
data, the amount and type of content your site will have, the type of layout
a designer has in mind, the site's business goals, etc., etc.
-
8. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 5:51 AM (in response to pbsum83)>
> A flexible layout works better.
> Always.
>
> Micha
What's a "flexible layout" and why does it "always" work better? Do major
sites follow this "rule" in general?
Thanks, Micha!
-
9. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 6:01 AM (in response to pbsum83).oO(babarabatibiri)
>> A flexible layout works better.
>> Always.
>>
>> Micha
>
>What's a "flexible layout"
A layout that follows the nature of the Web and which is not restricted
to a fixed dimension.
>and why does it "always" work better?
A fixed width of 960px for example only works for people with a browser
window of at least 1000px. A more flexible layout will always work for
much more users with various browser widths => better.
>Do major
>sites follow this "rule" in general?
Most do not, which is why they don't work here. I get a horizontal
scrollbar often enough, which could be easily prevented with a layout
done by a more competent designer.
Micha -
10. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:56 PM (in response to pbsum83)
"Michael Fesser" [email address removed by host] wrote in message
news:qlpkc45248d80k4hiiojuumgjtlvv4j83i@4ax.com...
> .oO(babarabatibiri)
>
>>Do major
>>sites follow this "rule" in general?
>
> Most do not, which is why they don't work here. I get a horizontal
> scrollbar often enough, which could be easily prevented with a layout
> done by a more competent designer.
>
> Micha
Given that an overwhelming majority of major, famous, often-visited
commercial sites have fixed-width layouts, is it possible to conclude that
their designers may know more than you think they do?
CNN, ESPN, ABC, Microsoft, Dell, Zeldman, Project VII, BBC, A List Apart,
Zen Garden, Adobe, DPreview, even Murray's site, etc, etc. They all have
"incompetent" designers? I seriously doubt it. I think you need to honestly
ask yourself if they have a very good reason for not sharing your vision.
L. Babarabatibiri
-
11. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:58 PM (in response to pbsum83).oO(babarabatibiri)
>"Michael Fesser" <email address removed by host> wrote in message
>news:qlpkc45248d80k4hiiojuumgjtlvv4j83i@4ax.com...
>> .oO(babarabatibiri)
>>
>>>Do major
>>>sites follow this "rule" in general?
>>
>> Most do not, which is why they don't work here. I get a horizontal
>> scrollbar often enough, which could be easily prevented with a layout
>> done by a more competent designer.
>>
>> Micha
>
>
>Given that an overwhelming majority of major, famous, often-visited
>commercial sites have fixed-width layouts, is it possible to conclude that
>their designers may know more than you think they do?
No.
A good site makes use of the features that the Web has to offer instead
of suppressing them. Many designer just treat a website as if it was a
sheet of paper, which often enough leads to usability problems.
>CNN, ESPN, ABC, Microsoft, Dell, Zeldman, Project VII, BBC, A List Apart,
>Zen Garden, Adobe, DPreview, even Murray's site, etc, etc. They all have
>"incompetent" designers? I seriously doubt it. I think you need to honestly
>ask yourself if they have a very good reason for not sharing your vision.
A fixed layout is _always_ a limitation, making it difficult for many
users to access the site.
With just a little more effort the above examples could _all_ be done in
a better and more userfriendly way to reach more users (even though most
of the biggest sites have a lot of other problems as well). Most sites
are targetted at desktop machines with big screens, but the Web is for
everyone. Obviously many designers don't care or don't have noticed yet
the increasing number of smaller devices for example. I don't talk about
PDAs and mobiles, which might require some special work, but about the
popular netbooks and the like, which are sold like hot cakes these days.
The Web is more and more becoming an all-day tool, which can be accessed
almost always and almost everywhere. Flexibility matters if you care
about your visitors.
YMMV.
Micha -
12. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:57 PM (in response to pbsum83)I think you still have a lot to learn, Micha.
At present, you can't really understand the reasons professional designers
have for making decisions that appear wrong to you. What you call "flexible
layouts" can be good in some cases, but fixed-width layouts enjoy their
popularity because professional designers understand and maximize the
medium's strenghts and limitations.
In the absence of any other evidence, I must go with the regular industry
practices. They may or may not change tomorrow. But for today, fixed-width
layouts are the mainstream, accepted way to go in the overwhelming majority
of cases, as exemplified by professional designers all over the world.
L. Babarabatibiri
"Michael Fesser" <email address removed by host> wrote in message
news:51rkc4dma4sf7snanoduddpvd0ef0l6uv4@4ax.com...
> .oO(babarabatibiri)
>
>>"Michael Fesser" <email address removed by host> wrote in message
>>news:qlpkc45248d80k4hiiojuumgjtlvv4j83i@4ax.com...
>>> .oO(babarabatibiri)
>>>
>>>>Do major
>>>>sites follow this "rule" in general?
>>>
>>> Most do not, which is why they don't work here. I get a horizontal
>>> scrollbar often enough, which could be easily prevented with a layout
>>> done by a more competent designer.
>>>
>>> Micha
>>
>>
>>Given that an overwhelming majority of major, famous, often-visited
>>commercial sites have fixed-width layouts, is it possible to conclude that
>>their designers may know more than you think they do?
>
> No.
>
> A good site makes use of the features that the Web has to offer instead
> of suppressing them. Many designer just treat a website as if it was a
> sheet of paper, which often enough leads to usability problems.
>
>>CNN, ESPN, ABC, Microsoft, Dell, Zeldman, Project VII, BBC, A List Apart,
>>Zen Garden, Adobe, DPreview, even Murray's site, etc, etc. They all have
>>"incompetent" designers? I seriously doubt it. I think you need to
>>honestly
>>ask yourself if they have a very good reason for not sharing your vision.
>
> A fixed layout is _always_ a limitation, making it difficult for many
> users to access the site.
>
> With just a little more effort the above examples could _all_ be done in
> a better and more userfriendly way to reach more users (even though most
> of the biggest sites have a lot of other problems as well). Most sites
> are targetted at desktop machines with big screens, but the Web is for
> everyone. Obviously many designers don't care or don't have noticed yet
> the increasing number of smaller devices for example. I don't talk about
> PDAs and mobiles, which might require some special work, but about the
> popular netbooks and the like, which are sold like hot cakes these days.
>
> The Web is more and more becoming an all-day tool, which can be accessed
> almost always and almost everywhere. Flexibility matters if you care
> about your visitors.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Micha
-
13. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
JoeyD1978 Sep 12, 2008 7:20 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)I've been arguing the exact same point to Fesser for months. Good luck, you have no hope of convincing him though ;-) -
14. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 7:33 AM (in response to pbsum83).oO(babarabatibiri)
>I think you still have a lot to learn, Micha.
>
>At present, you can't really understand the reasons professional designers
>have for making decisions that appear wrong to you. What you call "flexible
>layouts" can be good in some cases
Show me _one_ case where a more flexible layout would cause problems.
Just one.
>but fixed-width layouts enjoy their
>popularity because professional designers understand and maximize the
>medium's strenghts and limitations.
Almost everything that can be done in a fixed way can also be done in
a more flexible way. You just have to know how and be willing to learn
some more than just "HTML for dummies". Of course if management dictates
the rules, then you can't expect any quality.
And just in case it wasn't clear from my previous replies: The Web is
flexible by its nature! It's always the designers who _intentionally_
create limitations and obstacles for the users. Most of the designers
definitely have _not_ understood the strengths of the medium they're
working with, because they ignore or even suppress them. This can also
easily be proven by just having a look at the source code of most big
sites - terrible. Meaningful and efficient markup? No way. But as long
as it looks good on the designer's PC it's OK. Very professional indeed.
>In the absence of any other evidence, I must go with the regular industry
>practices. They may or may not change tomorrow. But for today, fixed-width
>layouts are the mainstream, accepted way to go in the overwhelming majority
>of cases, as exemplified by professional designers all over the world.
Most people just live with the poor quality they're given and don't even
ask if they could get something better (see IE for example).
For most of your "professional designers" all that matters is the look,
not the usability. According to the most fundamental rule of design,
form follows function, they are no designers, but just decorators. And
the Web is full of such decorations.
Micha -
15. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 1:59 PM (in response to pbsum83)Sorry, Micha. You seem to have a very personal issue with design and
designers in general.
I'll respect your feelings and end the conversation now. Thanks for the
exchange.
L. Babarabaibiri
"Michael Fesser" <email addresss removed by host> wrote in message
news:2vtkc45596ilpepf6hjv1kdj42fhnde791@4ax.com...
> .oO(babarabatibiri)
>
>>I think you still have a lot to learn, Micha.
>>
>>At present, you can't really understand the reasons professional designers
>>have for making decisions that appear wrong to you. What you call
>>"flexible
>>layouts" can be good in some cases
>
> Show me _one_ case where a more flexible layout would cause problems.
> Just one.
>
>>but fixed-width layouts enjoy their
>>popularity because professional designers understand and maximize the
>>medium's strenghts and limitations.
>
> Almost everything that can be done in a fixed way can also be done in
> a more flexible way. You just have to know how and be willing to learn
> some more than just "HTML for dummies". Of course if management dictates
> the rules, then you can't expect any quality.
>
> And just in case it wasn't clear from my previous replies: The Web is
> flexible by its nature! It's always the designers who _intentionally_
> create limitations and obstacles for the users. Most of the designers
> definitely have _not_ understood the strengths of the medium they're
> working with, because they ignore or even suppress them. This can also
> easily be proven by just having a look at the source code of most big
> sites - terrible. Meaningful and efficient markup? No way. But as long
> as it looks good on the designer's PC it's OK. Very professional indeed.
>
>>In the absence of any other evidence, I must go with the regular industry
>>practices. They may or may not change tomorrow. But for today, fixed-width
>>layouts are the mainstream, accepted way to go in the overwhelming
>>majority
>>of cases, as exemplified by professional designers all over the world.
>
> Most people just live with the poor quality they're given and don't even
> ask if they could get something better (see IE for example).
>
> For most of your "professional designers" all that matters is the look,
> not the usability. According to the most fundamental rule of design,
> form follows function, they are no designers, but just decorators. And
> the Web is full of such decorations.
>
> Micha
-
16. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:05 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)"JoeyD1978" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:gadtrb$npk$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I've been arguing the exact same point to Fesser for months. Good luck,
> you have no hope of convincing him though ;-)
You're absolutely right, Joey.
The only reason I went out of my way to "reason" with Micha is to help and
protect beginners; it's very important for them to realize that Micha's
narrow views are not, in any way, shared by web professionals. Given the
frequency and tone of Micha's posts, beginners run the risk of drawing the
wrong conclusions.
:-)
L. Babarabatibiri
-
17. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:15 AM (in response to pbsum83).oO(babarabatibiri)
>Sorry, Micha. You seem to have a very personal issue with design and
>designers in general.
I only have an issue with bad designers and designs that are
inappropriate for the target medium. I simply don't like user-
unfriendly sites and I've given enough reasons why. That easy.
Micha -
18. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:20 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)JoeyD1978 wrote:
> I've been arguing the exact same point to Fesser for months. Good luck, you have no hope of convincing him though ;-)
I think if you guys had any insight into the politics and heirarchical
constraints that exist in big business, you wouldn't be surprised that
the resulting website usually do not demonstrate current "best
practices." It's just the nature of the beast.
I have observed as a simple consumer who happens to understand why some
things don't work due to my "hobby/business" that many, many, big-name
sites do *not* work as intended simply because whoever is responsible
for the design (which often is not the designer but some
bottom-line-oriented suit) does not understand the various ways the site
could be used by the end viewer. This *starts* with something simple
such as not understanding some viewers browse with enlarged text or
limitations on relying on Flash and extends to all sorts of other
disfunctions that result from not enough usability testing.
I'm probably one of the few people here old enough to remember "Up the
Organization" by Peter Townsend. He has a hysterical scenario about
hiring someone (highly qualified) to come up with an ad and then
watching a bunch of suits make "suggestions" for "improvements."
Watching my own day job redo its website has been eye-opening, too.
They are dealing with every problem a big for-profit corporation would:
legacy shopping cart dictating some design limitations, uncertainty
about moving to a more up-to-date server, political stuff (marketing
dept. making design decisions), etc. A one-man web design shop has
things simple by comparison.
--
Bonnie -
19. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:23 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User).oO(babarabatibiri)
>"JoeyD1978" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
>news:gadtrb$npk$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> I've been arguing the exact same point to Fesser for months. Good luck,
>> you have no hope of convincing him though ;-)
>
>
>You're absolutely right, Joey.
>
>
>The only reason I went out of my way to "reason" with Micha is to help and
>protect beginners; it's very important for them to realize that Micha's
>narrow views are not, in any way, shared by web professionals.
You want to educate them to become the next generation of "nephews" or
"snowboarders" (a common term in Germany for designers who haven't any
clue about the Web).
Beginners should learn how to do it right and should focus on content,
usability and accessibility.
>Given the
>frequency and tone of Micha's posts, beginners run the risk of drawing the
>wrong conclusions.
I have given enough valid arguments to support my opinions. You didn't,
except for "that's professional".
Micha -
20. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:24 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)Bonnie is RIGHT ON TARGET. I really agree. And I believe that Micha is
free to express his opinion like anyone else here. My personal opinion and
preference is to use fixed width and centering pages. But that's also just
my opinion.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"Bonnie" <kroko@pixel[occam]plum.com> wrote in message
news:gae1bh$rjg$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> JoeyD1978 wrote:
>> I've been arguing the exact same point to Fesser for months. Good luck,
>> you have no hope of convincing him though ;-)
>
> I think if you guys had any insight into the politics and heirarchical
> constraints that exist in big business, you wouldn't be surprised that the
> resulting website usually do not demonstrate current "best practices."
> It's just the nature of the beast.
>
> I have observed as a simple consumer who happens to understand why some
> things don't work due to my "hobby/business" that many, many, big-name
> sites do *not* work as intended simply because whoever is responsible for
> the design (which often is not the designer but some bottom-line-oriented
> suit) does not understand the various ways the site could be used by the
> end viewer. This *starts* with something simple such as not understanding
> some viewers browse with enlarged text or limitations on relying on Flash
> and extends to all sorts of other disfunctions that result from not enough
> usability testing.
>
> I'm probably one of the few people here old enough to remember "Up the
> Organization" by Peter Townsend. He has a hysterical scenario about
> hiring someone (highly qualified) to come up with an ad and then watching
> a bunch of suits make "suggestions" for "improvements."
>
> Watching my own day job redo its website has been eye-opening, too. They
> are dealing with every problem a big for-profit corporation would: legacy
> shopping cart dictating some design limitations, uncertainty about moving
> to a more up-to-date server, political stuff (marketing dept. making
> design decisions), etc. A one-man web design shop has things simple by
> comparison.
>
> --
> Bonnie
-
21. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:44 AM (in response to pbsum83)> What's a "flexible layout" and why does it "always" work better? Do major
> sites follow this "rule" in general?
'Major sites' is a bit of a red herring. What the big guys do isn't usually
the best to emulate.
That said, your 960px number is really as good as any. Like you say, it's
very rare that one has a definable demographic that, in turn, has a
definable web browser screen resolution.
So, that's where the flexible/fluid options come in to play, as they can
accommodate a wider range of sizes.
-Darrel
-
22. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
JoeyD1978 Sep 12, 2008 8:46 AM (in response to pbsum83)Micha, why do you insist on equating fluid width with "accessibility"? As for your example, you posted a site you did for a lawyer friend if I recall correctly. On my 1440x900 laptop it looked pretty rough with my browser maximized. How is that more "usable" than a fixed width site when I get a headache from reading lines of text that are 1200 pixels long?
Do think Apples designers are hacks too? Last time I checked their site was a wide format fixed width layout. Did a "suit" make that decision? -
23. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:47 AM (in response to pbsum83)> Given that an overwhelming majority of major, famous, often-visited
> commercial sites have fixed-width layouts, is it possible to conclude that
> their designers may know more than you think they do?
No, that's not a viable conclusion.
Often the bigger the site, the less it's designed by a designer or even
design team. There's usually multiple stakeholders and, well, here come the
committees.
> They all have "incompetent" designers?
That's a silly and erroneous conclusion to jump to.
Fixed width isn't 'bad' either. In the end, there are usually more important
factors to dwell upon.
Ultimately, the best data to go off of is the actual content of the site.
That's known, can be measured, and is probably the best indicator of how,
exactly, to lay out your site.
-Darrel
-
24. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:49 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)> it's very important for them to realize that Micha's narrow views are
> not, in any way, shared by web professionals.
Your statement is as wrong as you think Micha's statement is.
There is no absolute rule here. It's not a black/white argument. There's a
whole lot of grey in it. That's the key for the beginner to understand.
-Darrel
-
25. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:49 AM (in response to pbsum83)> very rare that one has a definable demographic that, in turn, has a
> definable web browser screen resolution.
(psst - it's not a screen resolution issue)
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"darrel" <notreal@notreal.com> wrote in message
news:gae2pd$t89$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> What's a "flexible layout" and why does it "always" work better? Do major
>> sites follow this "rule" in general?
>
> 'Major sites' is a bit of a red herring. What the big guys do isn't
> usually the best to emulate.
>
> That said, your 960px number is really as good as any. Like you say, it's
> very rare that one has a definable demographic that, in turn, has a
> definable web browser screen resolution.
>
> So, that's where the flexible/fluid options come in to play, as they can
> accommodate a wider range of sizes.
>
> -Darrel
-
26. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:50 AM (in response to Newsgroup_User)> Bonnie is RIGHT ON TARGET.
Hear hear! (And, sigh, sigh, as I've been there too...committees are a
nature of the beast...the bigger the beast, the more voices get a say on
that damned committee ;o)
-Darrel
-
27. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:51 AM (in response to pbsum83)> (psst - it's not a screen resolution issue)
"web browser screen resolution"
I think I just made up that non-existent term. oops. ;o)
-Darrel -
28. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:52 AM (in response to pbsum83)> correctly. On my 1440x900 laptop it looked pretty rough with my browser
> maximized. How is that more "usable" than a fixed width site when I get a
> headache from reading lines of text that are 1200 pixels long?
It's arguably more accessible because you now have a choice. You, the USER,
can make that call as to how wide the page should be for YOUR preferences.
> Do think Apples designers are hacks too? Last time I checked their site
> was a
> wide format fixed width layout. Did a "suit" make that decision?
No. A black mock turtleneck did.
-Darrel
-
29. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 8:56 AM (in response to pbsum83)
"JoeyD1978" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:gae2ti$26$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Micha, why do you insist on equating fluid width with "accessibility"? As
> for
> your example, you posted a site you did for a lawyer friend if I recall
> correctly. On my 1440x900 laptop it looked pretty rough with my browser
> maximized. How is that more "usable" than a fixed width site when I get a
> headache from reading lines of text that are 1200 pixels long?
>
> Do think Apples designers are hacks too? Last time I checked their site
> was a
> wide format fixed width layout. Did a "suit" make that decision?
>
Not just Apple. Even "web-centric" guys like Zeldman (zeldma.com,
alistapart, etc) & Al Sparber go for fixed width. They know far more about
ANY web issue - including usability, accesibility and all sorts of
"ilities" - than Micha will learn in 7 lives. Whose judgement should anyone
trust? Micha's, who just has his opinion or real experts doing real sites
that anyone can visit and examine?
I'd go for the experts.
-
30. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Feb 14, 2013 2:01 PM (in response to pbsum83)I got news for you. Micha is an expert in my book. I don't always agree
with him, but I always have to concede his point.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"babarabatibiri" <email address removed by host> wrote in message
news:gae3fu$ni$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> "JoeyD1978" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
> news:gae2ti$26$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Micha, why do you insist on equating fluid width with "accessibility"? As
>> for
>> your example, you posted a site you did for a lawyer friend if I recall
>> correctly. On my 1440x900 laptop it looked pretty rough with my browser
>> maximized. How is that more "usable" than a fixed width site when I get a
>> headache from reading lines of text that are 1200 pixels long?
>>
>> Do think Apples designers are hacks too? Last time I checked their site
>> was a
>> wide format fixed width layout. Did a "suit" make that decision?
>>
>
> Not just Apple. Even "web-centric" guys like Zeldman (zeldma.com,
> alistapart, etc) & Al Sparber go for fixed width. They know far more about
> ANY web issue - including usability, accesibility and all sorts of
> "ilities" - than Micha will learn in 7 lives. Whose judgement should
> anyone trust? Micha's, who just has his opinion or real experts doing real
> sites that anyone can visit and examine?
>
> I'd go for the experts.
-
31. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:01 AM (in response to pbsum83)> Not just Apple. Even "web-centric" guys like Zeldman (zeldma.com,
> alistapart, etc) & Al Sparber go for fixed width. They know far more about
> ANY web issue - including usability, accesibility and all sorts of
> "ilities" - than Micha will learn in 7 lives.
When you say stuff like that, you've lost the argument.
-Darrel
-
32. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:12 AM (in response to pbsum83)
"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:gae3j9$p6$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>I got news for you. Micha is an expert in my book. I don't always agree
>with him, but I always have to concede his point.
>
that's quite understandable...
;-)
L. Babarabatibiri
-
33. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:14 AM (in response to pbsum83)babarabatibiri posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
> Not just Apple. Even "web-centric" guys like Zeldman (zeldma.com,
> alistapart, etc) & Al Sparber go for fixed width. They know far
> more about ANY web issue - including usability, accesibility and
> all sorts of "ilities" - than Micha will learn in 7 lives. Whose
> judgement should anyone trust? Micha's, who just has his opinion
> or real experts doing real sites that anyone can visit and
> examine?
>
> I'd go for the experts.
What makes you think experts have to agree on everything? What makes
you think the above names don't base their sites on their opinions?
Even scientists don't agree on everything and they're supposedly using
the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :) -
34. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:20 AM (in response to pbsum83)I think experts and scientists agree, though, on the big things. Like how
many animated GIF images one can use on a page. Or how to best display
"Site best viewed in Internet Explorer" on your page....
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================
"Mark A. Boyd" <lingoboyd@mboydDotcom.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9B175E02BEB7mblistssanDotrrcom@216.104.212.96...
> babarabatibiri posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
>
>> Not just Apple. Even "web-centric" guys like Zeldman (zeldma.com,
>> alistapart, etc) & Al Sparber go for fixed width. They know far
>> more about ANY web issue - including usability, accesibility and
>> all sorts of "ilities" - than Micha will learn in 7 lives. Whose
>> judgement should anyone trust? Micha's, who just has his opinion
>> or real experts doing real sites that anyone can visit and
>> examine?
>>
>> I'd go for the experts.
>
> What makes you think experts have to agree on everything? What makes
> you think the above names don't base their sites on their opinions?
>
> Even scientists don't agree on everything and they're supposedly using
> the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
>
>
>
> --
> Mark A. Boyd
> Keep-On-Learnin' :)
-
35. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:22 AM (in response to pbsum83)
"Mark A. Boyd" <lingoboyd@mboydDotcom.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9B175E02BEB7mblistssanDotrrcom@216.104.212.96...
> babarabatibiri posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
>
>
> What makes you think experts have to agree on everything?
I never said that experts have to agree on everything, Mark.
>What makes
> you think the above names don't base their sites on their opinions?
>
Of course, they base their decisions on their opinion which is formed based
on their knowledge and experience. That's where their expertise comes from.
So, it's pure common sense that the opinions of experts must be trusted more
than the opinion of non-experts. Zeldman and Sparber (to name a few) have a
body of work that anyone can examine. Micha's work is nowhere to be found.
Perhaps he can show us where and when he has put his theories into practice.
I'm willing to concede his point that "flexible layouts are always better"
when he produces the evidence.
-
36. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:26 AM (in response to pbsum83)> I think experts and scientists agree, though, on the big things. Like how
> many animated GIF images one can use on a page.
I heard they just built a giant animated GIF accelerator in Europe
somewhere.
Some fear that this could potentially lead to the global blue screen of
death.
-Darrel
-
37. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:27 AM (in response to pbsum83)> So, it's pure common sense that the opinions of experts must be trusted
> more than the opinion of non-experts.
Karl Rove and Michael Moore are both political policy experts. Which one is
right?
-Darrel
-
38. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:51 AM (in response to pbsum83)babarabatibiri posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
>
> "Mark A. Boyd" <lingoboyd@mboydDotcom.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B175E02BEB7mblistssanDotrrcom@216.104.212.96...
>> babarabatibiri posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
>>
>> What makes you think experts have to agree on everything?
>
> I never said that experts have to agree on everything, Mark.
Perhaps you've simply chosen to agree with the experts who use fixed
width, then. That doesn't make proponents of flexible sites any less
expert.
> So, it's pure common sense that the opinions of experts must be
> trusted more than the opinion of non-experts. Zeldman and Sparber
> (to name a few) have a body of work that anyone can examine.
> Micha's work is nowhere to be found. Perhaps he can show us where
> and when he has put his theories into practice.
Perhaps not as published (to newsgroups) sites or books, but I've seen
enough of his posts in several newsgroups (not just macromedia.*) that
I am convinced of his expertise. His knowledge certainly surpasses mine
in several areas in which I don't consider myself a novice, anyway.
> I'm willing to
> concede his point that "flexible layouts are always better" when
> he produces the evidence.
I wonder. We may never get the opportunity, though. That he doesn't
publish his sites here or author books, does not make him a non-expert.
I admit that "always" and "never" are rarely (never?) the best words to
use when talking about anything related to design.
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :) -
39. Re: Web Page Layout Resolution
Newsgroup_User Sep 12, 2008 9:55 AM (in response to pbsum83)darrel posted in macromedia.dreamweaver:
>> I think experts and scientists agree, though, on the big things.
>> Like how many animated GIF images one can use on a page.
>
> I heard they just built a giant animated GIF accelerator in Europe
> somewhere.
>
> Some fear that this could potentially lead to the global blue
> screen of death.
Sucking us all into Windoze at the center of the Earth.
What sort of sub-pixels do they expect to discover from these
collissions?
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :)




