Fixed-width versus Fluid design

William Tasso wrote:
 > On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:09:48 +0100, Si
 > <siREMOVE.TakeThisOut@simonNOSPACEcornforth.co.uk> wrote:
 >
  >> Hi All.
 >
 >
 > How do you do?
 >
  >> I have recently been approached to build sites based on fixed width
  >> designs, this goes against everything I usually tell my clients and
  >> what I design myself.
 >
 >
 > Tell them to engage a graphic designer that is familiar with
 > requirements of print media.
 >
  >> I understand from a graphic designers point of view, a fixed width
  >> design approach is just like designing for print, apart from they
  >> can select their page width.
 >
 >
 > exactly - see above. frankly. this type of site is best served up as a
 > collection of images. Variable size text simply gets in the way.
 >
  >> I do not come from a design background and have worked on sites that
  >> have to work on PDA's and smartphones, so a fixed width design will
  >> fall from outset.
 >
 >
 > Correct.
 >
  >> Additionally, I find that fluid designs are a damn site easier to
  >> build in css than fixed width designs.
 >
 >
 > They are.
 >
  >> Header images can a pain in the butt though!
 >
 >
 > Never seen them as a problem - they just scroll off the screen. So
 > long as your content doesn't follow then there not much lost.
 >
 >
  >> I have had a look around on various searches to find a definitive
  >> reference to fluid designs being the preferred style for the web,
  >> but, the general opinion I have found on various sites, seem to come
  >> out with nothing more than, 'designers preference'.
 >
 >
 > Then I suggest you extend your search deeper into usenet. I'm not even
 > sure if I could articulate the arguments for fluid design now. Common
 > sense is like that. Take a trawl through the archives at
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://groups.google.com" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com</a> - in particular ...
 > o news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
 > o news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
 > o news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
 > o news:alt.html
 > o news:uk.net.web.authoring
 >
  >> I suppose I am hoping to stimulate a discussion (possibly again for
  >> some, apologies) as to the pros and cons of both, hopefully in my
  >> favour , time will tell on that one!
 >
 >
 > heh he - enjoy the ride
 >

Jakob Nielsen has something to say on the subject (no surprises there,
then) at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html" target="_blank">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html</a> (see Item 2)

--
David Preston
Now playing: Madness - The Prince<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fixed-width versus Fluid design 

Si wrote:
 > Hi All.
 >
 > I have recently been approached to build sites based on fixed width
 > designs, this goes against everything I usually tell my clients and what
 > I design myself.
 >
 > I understand from a graphic designers point of view, a fixed width
 > design approach is just like designing for print, apart from they can
 > select their page width. I do not come from a design background and have
 > worked on sites that have to work on PDA's and smartphones, so a fixed
 > width design will fall from outset. Additionally, I find that fluid
 > designs are a damn site easier to build in css than fixed width designs.
 > Header images can a pain in the butt though!
 >
 > I have had a look around on various searches to find a definitive
 > reference to fluid designs being the preferred style for the web, but,
 > the general opinion I have found on various sites, seem to come out with
 > nothing more than, 'designers preference'.
 >
 > I suppose I am hoping to stimulate a discussion (possibly again for
 > some, apologies) as to the pros and cons of both, hopefully in my favour
 > , time will tell on that one!
 >
 > Si

Why recently I have moved to fixed width

It is actually because of the vast array of screens! using CSS, you can
to some degree say that you want a different CSS style sheet for
different devices, but I like fixed width from an accessible / usable
standpoint. Simply that:

* wide text is harder to read *

try readomg a broadsheet which doesn't have columns! Especially as I am
a little dyslexic, narrower columns make reading, particularly scan
reading far easier (most people scan read on a screen, even according to
Nielson). A website which unfortunately is about to "die" soon, which
did use fixed width is <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.Gosw.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.Gosw.gov.uk</a> it has lost some of its
accessibility and well, with the lifespan of the website we knew that
many of the issues couldn't be fixed... incidentally there is a wrapper
on that page to "fix" the width, so a CSS tweak and it wouldn't be fixed...

Why is it that many of the leading websites such as the BBC have gone to
fixed? you will find many of the bigger websites, major portals etc...
have gone to a fixed width, more so recently as more people now have
8x600 as a minimum resolution, Yes the increase in alternative formats
is a factor, and most of my personal sites are not based on a fixed
width - but I do see a lot of a advantages in fixed width.

Who is the target market for the website?

you can have aspects of fixed and variable width in a website and it
will work well ...

As for the header images in variable width websites - the best advice is
use CSS and a background image, it will also give you great control over
print areas etc...

HTH's

Gerry
(sorry I like fixed a a lot of the time)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fixed-width versus Fluid design 

Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:

 > Si wrote:
  >> Hi All.
  >>
  >> I have recently been approached to build sites based on fixed width
  >> designs, this goes against everything I usually tell my clients and what
  >> I design myself.
  >>
  >> I understand from a graphic designers point of view, a fixed width
  >> design approach is just like designing for print, apart from they can
  >> select their page width. I do not come from a design background and have
  >> worked on sites that have to work on PDA's and smartphones, so a fixed
  >> width design will fall from outset. Additionally, I find that fluid
  >> designs are a damn site easier to build in css than fixed width designs.
  >> Header images can a pain in the butt though!
  >>
  >> I have had a look around on various searches to find a definitive
  >> reference to fluid designs being the preferred style for the web, but,
  >> the general opinion I have found on various sites, seem to come out with
  >> nothing more than, 'designers preference'.
  >>
  >> I suppose I am hoping to stimulate a discussion (possibly again for
  >> some, apologies) as to the pros and cons of both, hopefully in my favour
  >> , time will tell on that one!

Another discussion about this happened in the thread "Opinion: Do web
standards matter?" in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html. Thread
started on March 26, and I think fixed vs flexible came in on the
31st.

 > Why recently I have moved to fixed width
 >
 > It is actually because of the vast array of screens! using CSS, you can
 > to some degree say that you want a different CSS style sheet for
 > different devices, but I like fixed width from an accessible / usable
 > standpoint. Simply that:
 >
 > * wide text is harder to read *

So narrow your window for the flexible line length to be the length
/you/ prefer.
It's not as hard as short lines of only 3 words (when people need to
increase the font size because of bad eye-sight) and also not as hard
as having to scroll sideways for each line if the window happens to be
narrower than your fixed width.

 > Why is it that many of the leading websites such as the BBC have gone to
 > fixed?

No idea - are you sure they ever were flexible width?

 > you will find many of the bigger websites, major portals etc...
 > have gone to a fixed width, more so recently as more people now have
 > 8x600 as a minimum resolution,

More people, yes. Not all.
But why do I have to use a fixed width page with large blank areas
while my window may be 1600px wide? If I have bad eyes and need a
font-size of [insert too large for your liking here], why am I not
allowed to use the full width of my 1600x1200 px monitor that I bought
for that purpose?

 > Yes the increase in alternative formats
 > is a factor, and most of my personal sites are not based on a fixed
 > width - but I do see a lot of a advantages in fixed width.

I can only see two really:
1) for the designer: it's easier to work with solid picture sizes.
2) for Travis Newbury: he doesn't have to alter the size of his window
to make the lines shorter to read them easier. Travis prefers full
screen windows.

 > (sorry I like fixed a a lot of the time)

You probably have a monitor that allows you to choose any window width
between 800 and 1280px. Not everyone does

--
Els <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://locusmeus.com/" target="_blank">http://locusmeus.com/</a>
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fixed-width versus Fluid design 

On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:08:18 +0100, Els <els.aNOSPAM.DeleteThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:

 > Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:
 >
  >> Why is it that many of the leading websites such as the BBC have gone to
  >> fixed?
 >
 > No idea - are you sure they ever were flexible width?

I don't believe the BBC site ever has been.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://web.archive.org/web/" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/</a>*/http://bbc.co.uk

--
Whatever you do - do something.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fixed-width versus Fluid design 

Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:

 > Why recently I have moved to fixed width
 >
 > It is actually because of the vast array of screens! using CSS, you can
 > to some degree say that you want a different CSS style sheet for
 > different devices, but I like fixed width from an accessible / usable
 > standpoint. Simply that:

Surely that is a very good reason to use a fluid layout, the screen size
then becomes irrelevant, granted that some wider images may cause a
horizontal scrollbar.

 > * wide text is harder to read *

Possibly, you can decrease the width of your browser though!

 > try readomg a broadsheet which doesn't have columns!

I can't userstand broadheets, the type is too small and the words too big.

 > Why is it that many of the leading websites such as the BBC have gone to
 > fixed? you will find many of the bigger websites, major portals etc...
 > have gone to a fixed width, <snip>

From my experience with working as a coder within blue corporate or
large business, the fixed width has probably not been decided as a
result of usability testing or on the coders advice, usually, we are not
invited or not considered relevant during the design phase of a site
build, but rather, handed the (signed off) designs and told to go build
them!

- but I do see a lot of a advantages in fixed width.

Easy to build in tables, easy to follow design mocks. If you also look
at the layout as viewed for accessibility, search engines or even how
the document will print out, then a fluid layout is consistently easier
to build easier to control.

 > Who is the target market for the website?

Blue chip client offering financial services, placing a great emphasis
on DDA compliance/accessibility

 > you can have aspects of fixed and variable width in a website and it
 > will work well ...

I agree, as long as that is not limited to having a fluid header then
fixing a left nav width and content width to you basically have a left
aligned fixed width design with a 100% width header.

 > As for the header images in variable width websites - the best advice is
 > use CSS and a background image, it will also give you great control over
 > print areas etc...

I was thinking more along the lines of how the image will tile or how a
600px wide banner would look 'plonked' on the page, there need to be
some sort of blending. A classic example would be how to place a flash
animation that occupies 100% of the width of a fixed width site in the
header area. This can often look really nice in a fixed width design but
very out of place on a fluid site. I suppose this goes back to initial
design layout though rather me trying to adapt a fixed width design for
fluid.

 > HTH's
 > Gerry
 > (sorry I like fixed a a lot of the time)

Yep, I still prefer fluid.

Si<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fixed-width versus Fluid design