J
Jonathan N. Little
Travis said:Well we disagree I guess. Won't be the first time.
Well you haven't been very good at supporting your position with any
supportive argument. The ol' "'cuz" does not support the debate. In my
argument I used to support my position that how with web-delivered
content the "canvas", device, and actual user access of the content
cannot be controlled by the designer; and therefore impacts the
effectiveness of various layouts. And you counter "I just don't believe
that it is the only way to design a website." Essentially, "'cuz".
That's the problem I think here in the US; emphasis is on "faith". It
seems to have destroyed critical thinking. You can hold a position
without the need for all that analysis and synthesis of evidence and
factors to come to a reasoned conclusion. You can just wave your hand
and say, this is it because it is how I believe. The end.
Now I didn't say liquid-layout is the *only* way to design a website.
What I have said is that liquid-layout is best suited for how the web
works. The fixed-layout will always be at the disadvantage because of
the flexible delivery of web-content. Therefore if one decides on a
fixed liquid-layout they have to realize the limiting and negative
impact of that design choice and whether on not the "control" provided
by a fixed layout out weighs the detriments with respect to the
application. And my point is that too many designers arbitrarily choose
fixed-layouts without taking a critical look at how the web works.
If you feel my argument is incorrect, challenge it, and convince me with
evidence. I have not always held this position. Coming from a art and
graphics background my first web designs were very "fixed". As the web
has evolved so has my design process, and it still continues to evolve.