«

First of all, thanks to everyone who has answered my multiple
questions this week. What a great group!

Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
or should the width be set? Opinions?

Personally, I would like to make sites that have a dynamic width. I
want my design to scale with the user's browser window. However in
practice I find it really hard to make a web page look good this way.
For example, this design I'm working on looks good at 1024x768 and
800x600, but terrible at higher resolutions: http://quick2web.com/izzy

I'm considering fixing the width. But if I do that, what do I set it
at? 1024 so it looks good on the majority of windows, but people with
lower resolution can't see all of it? Or 800 so almost every user can
see the whole thing, but I don't have a lot of horizontal space?

Kevin

Kevin Audleman wrote:
> First of all, thanks to everyone who has answered my multiple
> questions this week. What a great group!
>
> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
> or should the width be set? Opinions?
>
> Personally, I would like to make sites that have a dynamic width. I
> want my design to scale with the user's browser window. However in
> practice I find it really hard to make a web page look good this way.
> For example, this design I'm working on looks good at 1024x768 and
> 800x600, but terrible at higher resolutions: http://quick2web.com/izzy
>
> I'm considering fixing the width. But if I do that, what do I set it
> at? 1024 so it looks good on the majority of windows, but people with
> lower resolution can't see all of it? Or 800 so almost every user can
> see the whole thing, but I don't have a lot of horizontal space?

Here is an answer that I do not think you will get from anyone else.

The problem with a fixed-width page is that it is optimized for certain
people, and therefore will create problems for everyone else. The
problem with a simple dynamic page which uses some fixed percentage of
the browser window width is that pages may be too wide for people who
have very wide browser windows.

All my sites are fluid, e.g. have dynamic widths, but all my recent
sites have a special property: I set a maximum width to the page which
depends on the user's preferred font size. For example, in CSS using
max-width:55em

This has several interesting consequences:

1. if the user has a very narrow browser window, the page uses all of
the window.

2. if the user has a very, very wide window, the page is centered
within the browser window, with equal sized margins at the left and right.

3. someone who needs a larger font to read clearly will get a wider
page; someone who prefers a smaller font will get a narrower page.

4. a given line will have about the same number of words, no matter
what the user's preferred font size is.

5. with older browsers which do not recognize max-width, the page takes
up a fixed percentage of the browser window. Today this is mainly IE5
and IE6.

You can see a sample at:

http://www.upsdell.com/gba/2008/MajorPeewee/index.htm

Change your preferred font size and see what happens. Change the width
of the browser window and see what happens.

In article <foq4pc$tbc$>,
C A Upsdell <> wrote:

> Kevin Audleman wrote:

> > Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
> > or should the width be set? Opinions?

> Here is an answer that I do not think you will get from anyone else.
>

Your answer is good and competent and deserving. But I have very
grave reservations about the implications of the sentence I quote
above. It is very important to show great modesty at all times
and to respect people who are gathered here out of the goodness
of their hearts to help others. A finer set of human beings have
never come together in the history of mankind and one must be
very careful not to slur their good name.

I have to stop a mo to attend to this lump I am getting in my
throat, wipe away some tears...

Now, what was I saying? O yes, modesty...

No bugger that, I am reminded of my lost cause:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

> All my sites are fluid, e.g. have dynamic widths, but all my recent
> sites have a special property: I set a maximum width to the page which
> depends on the user's preferred font size. For example, in CSS using
> max-width:55em

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <foq4pc$tbc$>,
> C A Upsdell <> wrote:
>
>> Kevin Audleman wrote:
>
>>> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
>>> or should the width be set? Opinions?
>
>> Here is an answer that I do not think you will get from anyone else.
>>
> Your answer is good and competent and deserving. But I have very
> grave reservations about the implications of the sentence I quote
> above. It is very important to show great modesty at all times ...

I was not trying to boast when I said "Here is an answer that I do not
think you will get from anyone else". I was instead expressing my view
that what I have been doing is significantly different from more
conventional solutions to the OP's query. I think that many designers
might consider my approach to be very odd at best, and quite perverse at
worst.

"Kevin Audleman" <> wrote in message
news:ff63bb13-ea33-48d8-ae09-...
> First of all, thanks to everyone who has answered my multiple
> questions this week. What a great group!
>
> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
> or should the width be set? Opinions?
>
> Personally, I would like to make sites that have a dynamic width. I
> want my design to scale with the user's browser window. However in
> practice I find it really hard to make a web page look good this way.
> For example, this design I'm working on looks good at 1024x768 and
> 800x600, but terrible at higher resolutions: http://quick2web.com/izzy
>
> I'm considering fixing the width. But if I do that, what do I set it
> at? 1024 so it looks good on the majority of windows, but people with
> lower resolution can't see all of it? Or 800 so almost every user can
> see the whole thing, but I don't have a lot of horizontal space?
>
> Kevin

[rolls eyes, hides in the kitchen and promises to stay there until it all
blows over and not get involved this time...]

Have to say though, the two sites presented with max-width set in ems do
look very foxy, though they are both very texty. Where a more "designed"
look is required however... [no, I'm hiding in the kitchen]

+mrcakey

C A Upsdell wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>> In article <foq4pc$tbc$>,
>> C A Upsdell <> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Audleman wrote:
>>
>>>> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
>>>> or should the width be set? Opinions?
>>
>>> Here is an answer that I do not think you will get from anyone else.
>>>
>> Your answer is good and competent and deserving. But I have very
>> grave reservations about the implications of the sentence I quote
>> above. It is very important to show great modesty at all times ...
>
> I was not trying to boast when I said "Here is an answer that I do not
> think you will get from anyone else". I was instead expressing my view
> that what I have been doing is significantly different from more
> conventional solutions to the OP's query. I think that many designers
> might consider my approach to be very odd at best, and quite perverse at
> worst.

Many maybe, but not all. I've had my own sites like that for years
already. I was certainly not aware of it being a non-conventional
solution, as it's been discussed in this newsgroup several times
before.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

In article <foqd4t$d6m$>,
C A Upsdell <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <foq4pc$tbc$>,
> > C A Upsdell <> wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin Audleman wrote:
> >
> >>> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
> >>> or should the width be set? Opinions?
> >
> >> Here is an answer that I do not think you will get from anyone else.
> >>
> > Your answer is good and competent and deserving. But I have very
> > grave reservations about the implications of the sentence I quote
> > above. It is very important to show great modesty at all times ...
>
> I was not trying to boast when I said "Here is an answer that I do not
> think you will get from anyone else". I was instead expressing my view
> that what I have been doing is significantly different from more
> conventional solutions to the OP's query. I think that many designers
> might consider my approach to be very odd at best, and quite perverse at
> worst.

You might simply have missed that I don't at all mind a bit of
boasting (how can I?) and was saying without having to openly
praise all my colleagues and enemies on this newsgroup that many
of them are well aware and have advocated just the sort of thing
you are talking about.

You have done little wrong, C A Upsdell so don't worry, but you
have appeared to me to not pay due respect to this particular
newsgroup's efforts in this regard. It is as if you have
parachuted in to declare a message without knowing (or caring?)
who here might have said similar or how often.

My link to my article was not meant to be something to read by
you - no one takes any notice of the contents of what is
reasonable and would change the world for the better any more. It
was just a reminder that others do this sort of fluid thing too
and talk about it here, the article was posted here ages ago in a
discussion about such design matters.

--
dorayme

On Feb 11, 12:55 pm, Kevin Audleman <kevin.audle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
> or should the width be set? Opinions?

Google the group for Fixed width and save us all a lot of time
repeating the things we just got done talking about last week.

Oh, the answer to your question is "It depends on the site".

C A Upsdell <> wrote in
news:foq4pc$tbc$:

[snip]
>
> All my sites are fluid, e.g. have dynamic widths, but all my recent
> sites have a special property: I set a maximum width to the page
> which depends on the user's preferred font size. For example, in CSS
> using max-width:55em

My preferred font size is no where near small, x-small or xx-small. What
this tries to do is reduce my preferred font size much much smaller,
however what happens is it goes to my min-font-size.

I just don't want anyone to think that setting any font size to anything
less then normal, 100% or 1em is using a user's preferred font size.

[snip]
> http://www.upsdell.com/gba/2008/MajorPeewee/index.htm
[snip]

Designs like this one is what makes min-font-size and max-font-size a very
desirable and necessary setting in a UA.

--
BootNic Monday February 11, 2008 7:23 PM
Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption
are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of
the world is evidently approaching.
*Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.*

"Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
news:842d0be2-162c-4a2d-b751-...
> On Feb 11, 12:55 pm, Kevin Audleman <kevin.audle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now on to my question: should web pages be built with a dynamic width,
>> or should the width be set? Opinions?
>
> Google the group for Fixed width and save us all a lot of time
> repeating the things we just got done talking about last week.
>
> Oh, the answer to your question is "It depends on the site".

It also depends on the technical ability and mindset of the person
implementing the site. There are very few designs that *require* fixed
width.

While I agree with Travis that "it depends on the site" I would confidently
say that for the vast majority of websites that fluid is more appropriate.

Also, as regards the OP reading the recent discussions, they were more about
evaluating analogies, the distinction between design and engineering than
about fixed vs fluid width, about how some people prefer fixed width etc.
They did not really clarify either of the following:

What *specific* technical arguments are there against making a site fluid?

What *specific* aesthetic arguments?

Now, Travis says that you should not presuppose fluid design before you
learn who the target audience is and what the owner wants to present. The
same goes for fixed. You have to weight the pros and cons of both up in
each situation. I have yet to see a situation where, by the previous two
critera, technical and aesthetic, fixed wins over on a site-wide basis.

The only example I have seen where fixed does win that argument is on a
page-by-page basis, for example that of a video site where the page is
mainly just a border for the video, and I think the same can extend to other
fixed size media like images. But, as soon as you have other (textual)
content on that page then again an argument can and should be made for the
page being fluid.