Synook Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) !@#$%^&*o all. Please tell me your opinion on whether a website is better if it has a fixed width that does not change with screen size (such as http://www.sscentral.com), or a "fluid" width that expands and contracts with changes in screen size and resolution (such as this forum's "default" skin). Thanks Also, does it matter what the website contains - i.e. mostly text or mostly pictures, etc ?Thank you for your vote and/or comment. Edited April 10, 2007 by Synook
»1587200 Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 The skin Crisp is a fixed width skin, and I like fixed much better (hence the reason I made it that way). I like it when things stay where I put them instead of expanding where I don't want them. As far as content is concerned, if there are lots of images that vary in size, like a photo gallery or random image, then a fluid design should be used to compensate for the image size differences. All else should be fixed.
Synook Posted April 10, 2007 Author Report Posted April 10, 2007 Umm... if you vote, it would be nice to hear your reasons and explanations as to why you chose that option. Thanks - I am trying to develop a website at the moment, and I can't decide on whether it should be fixed-width or fluid-width.
Samapico Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Fluid-width cause I'm using widescreen and fixed-width designs are wasting my screen space and I need to scroll much more
Dav Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 fluid width is much better, suites more people IMO.
Hakaku Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Oops, forgot to comment earlier Fixed width is only good if you have a heavy design website, and don't want it to morph all weirldly in other resolutions. But in higher resolutions usually, most websites with fixed widths are coded terribly; sometimes the width is even too small for an 800x600 reso, other times its way out off proportion and you get miles of left to right scrolling, even in high resos. Fluid is best alternative, as it can work well in low resolutions as well as high resolution screens. But it all comes down to how the design is set up, and how badly you coded it. Always make sure it's cross-browser compatible, and always check for mistakes
Synook Posted April 10, 2007 Author Report Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Hmm... however, I was thinking, if you have a really wide screen (like over 2000 pixels), wouldn't a person find it a hassle to read along the line of the text - they would have to move their eyes from one side of the screen to the other, instead of just reading down the page... maybe... Also - is there any way to get Safari for the PC - I have Firefox, Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera, but I can't seem to get Safari... also, is it possible to have both IE6 and IE7 installed on one machine at the same time? Because they are quite different, as I have noticed to my detriment some times... Edited April 10, 2007 by Synook
Hakaku Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Well, you don't have to set width to 100%, you can add margins and all that jazz, so that it looks relatively the same in most resolutions. Edit: You can always use a mix of fixed properties and fluid ones. Edited April 10, 2007 by Hakaku
Synook Posted April 10, 2007 Author Report Posted April 10, 2007 True - thanks! Have a look at http://www.roundeddesign.co.nr/tutorialsys/. Now - do you (and everyone else) think that should be fixed-width or fluid-width?
Samapico Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 If someone with a wide screen finds it a hassle to read all accross the screen, he will resize his window anyway...
Synook Posted April 11, 2007 Author Report Posted April 11, 2007 I suppose so... more people seem to be voting for fluid-width now - it was equal yesterday. Though, did anyone have a look at the TutorialSys website? For I cannot imagine that using a fluid-width design... Also, don't forget to comment when you vote thanks
Dav Posted April 11, 2007 Report Posted April 11, 2007 lookes like it would work with fluid quite well. Fixed is easier when it comes to complex designes that need corner images and such but with the time and skill these can also be made to work with a combination of fixed and fluid elements.
candygirl Posted April 11, 2007 Report Posted April 11, 2007 Fluid-width cause I'm using widescreen and fixed-width designs are wasting my screen space and I need to scroll much more yep same here
Synook Posted April 15, 2007 Author Report Posted April 15, 2007 If someone with a wide screen finds it a hassle to read all accross the screen, he will resize his window anyway...Now hang on a tick Samapico... I was just thinking, if a widescreen person does find it a hassle to read across his screen and resizes it, then won't he or she simply be negating the effect of the fluid-width design, by reducing the width of the page to a width which is comparable to fixed-width websites? Also, a HTML question: is it possible to make the element fluid-width? Thanks all. Are there really only 11 people on this forum who have an opinion on this?
JoWie Posted April 15, 2007 Report Posted April 15, 2007 (edited) I prefer a mix of the two. Make it fluid, but use a fixed width for min-width and max-width. Reading short lines is much easier to read, that is why news papers have short columns (short as in width). Also, a HTML question: is it possible to make the element fluid-width?Any block element can have a width set, if the element is inline you need to do display: block;Do note some CSS properties trigger display: block, like float: left / right; is an inline element, see: <a href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/HTML:Inline_elements" rel="external nofollow">http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/HTML:Inline_elements</a> Edited April 15, 2007 by JoWie
Recommended Posts