Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

D

dorayme

"Jukka K. Korpela said:
Scripsit Travis Newbury:


You can't make up your mind, can you? Or maybe you just don't understand
"fluid design". In a nutshell, it's an approach that says that one size
does not fit all. Try googling for "fluid design".

Plus, Travis, once you have decided for some reason that you are
going to fix the width of some box to contain your "site", that
does not mean you have to go on and do what could easily be
foolish and clueless things by fixing *everything* inside.

I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own,
everything according to its need. Are you quite sure you have not
been to the Dale Carnegie course on postmodernist relativist
thought, specializing in how to win friends in every school of
thought?
 
T

Travis Newbury

I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own

One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
can and can not do (should or should not)

Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Chaddy2222:
It really does depend on who the client is.

It depends on what you mean by "it". You didn't specify that.
As an example most of the
sites I design are information based sites.
But for entertainment based sites a more graphical based design works
better.

If "it" means the adequacy of fluid design, then it seems that you, too,
have missed the meaning of the concept. It is not the opposite of "more
graphical based design".
 
T

Travis Newbury

If "it" means the adequacy of fluid design, then it seems that you, too,
have missed the meaning of the concept. It is not the opposite of "more
graphical based design".

Jukka,

Is there any reason you could think of that a site would be better off
if they did not use flexible design?
 
A

Andy Dingley

No I completely understand fluid design, I just do not believe that it
is the way that ALL websites need to be created.

Certainly not. Fluid design is only needed when you don't know the
size of the window relative to the display, the pixel and the readable
font size. Provided you know all these beforehand, there's no need to
be fluid at all.

If you don't know these, then your page _needs_ to be fluid. Maybe
you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design, so you might decide
to present one _box_ on this page (maybe a large box) and maintain non-
fluid behaviour within this box of known size and constrained
behaviours -- but you still need to be fluid _outside_ this box,
because you just can't control or predict the capabilities of the
device that is going to come to visit your site.

So if you're buiiding rigid intranet apps for kiosk terminals within a
controlled building (maybe museum info-points), then perhaps you
really don't need to worry about fluid design of overall pages. Except
of course when you have to maintain the things, and a year later you
install some with bigger displays and more, but smaller, pixels. Or
you need to worry about accessibility issues and text sizes.
 
T

Travis Newbury

you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design

And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
design.

But then so are my clients and their customers so I guess in the end
it is working out pretty well for everyone.

If you give the customer what they WANT they will return, if you try
to force feed them what you think they NEED you will lose.

But this argument is dumb and we have been down this road a billion
times. We disagree, oh well life goes on...
 
A

Andy Dingley

And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
design.

That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
made out of printed paper"
But then so are my clients and their customers

They they're still wrong.

I understand your point here - I've worked in big ad agencies, and in
magazine publishers. Both did terrible web design, because what they
most wanted above all was a glossy magazine page that looked like an
advert. Both thought that ghastly sliced-image web pages designed as
PSDs were the right thing to deliver.

One had end-user customers who hated the sites, the other simply had
no end-user customers. The magazine publisher learned (over several
years) and fixed many problems. The ad agency was insulated from
reality because their immediate customers (big brands) didn't know any
better either and didn't realise that there were no end-users. Finally
they simply went bust (at least the web division of a huge
conglomerate).
If you give the customer what they WANT they will return,

Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
won't, because the sites suck.
if you try
to force feed them what you think they NEED you will lose.

You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to. IMHE, they
learned very slowly and finally got a clue about a year after I'd
left.

Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!
 
C

Chaddy2222

That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
made out of printed paper"


They they're still wrong.

I understand your point here - I've worked in big ad agencies, and in
magazine publishers. Both did terrible web design, because what they
most wanted above all was a glossy magazine page that looked like an
advert. Both thought that ghastly sliced-image web pages designed as
PSDs were the right thing to deliver.

One had end-user customers who hated the sites, the other simply had
no end-user customers. The magazine publisher learned (over several
years) and fixed many problems. The ad agency was insulated from
reality because their immediate customers (big brands) didn't know any
better either and didn't realise that there were no end-users. Finally
they simply went bust (at least the web division of a huge
conglomerate).


Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
won't, because the sites suck.


You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to. IMHE, they
learned very slowly and finally got a clue about a year after I'd
left.

Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!

Umm Andy Trav works for the entertainment industry (mainly sites such
as:
http://www.snoopdogg.com/
Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.
 
T

Travis Newbury

That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
made out of printed paper"

I understood that. And Pixel perfect design does make that
assumption.
They they're still wrong.

No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all. They are no
more wrong than you are. People have preferences and they tend to
gravitate towards those preferences. That is like saying people that
like the color blue are wrong.
Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
won't, because the sites suck.

They suck to "you" not to everyone. You are assuming that if they do
not follow your flexible width design they will fail. That is a
completely invalid assumption.
You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to.

You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.
Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!

Or they could kick you out the door... Sorry Andy, we disagree on
this. And you know what? Flexible websites will never take over the
web, and neither will fixed width. They will always both exist
because people like different things. And I can live with that. Can
you?
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:18:39 GMT
Chaddy2222 scribed:
Umm Andy Trav works for the entertainment industry (mainly sites such
as:
http://www.snoopdogg.com/
Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.

Is that because of his attitude toward actual web page authoring or perhaps
something like a generally inflexible personality?
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:01:08 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:
One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
can and can not do (should or should not)

Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.

Hmm, you may not be engendering any empathy here. I think dorayme's mantra
left for greener pastures la la.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:01:08 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:




Hmm, you may not be engendering any empathy here. I think dorayme's mantra
left for greener pastures la la.


I am dorayme's mantra!
 
T

Travis Newbury

Is that because of his attitude toward actual web page authoring or perhaps
something like a generally inflexible personality?

That is because that is all they contracted me to do.
 
A

Andy Dingley

I understood that. And Pixel perfect design does make that
assumption.


No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all.

If they disagree with me by continuing to think that, "the web is made
out of printed paper" then they _are_ wrong! You might just as well
say that the Internet is a series of tubes.

People have preferences and they tend to gravitate towards those preferences.

Of course. To recycle some trite slogan from McCola or whoever it was,
"Your burger, your way". Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
prevents choice.

In no way am I suggesting that good web design is about grey
backgrounds, HTML 2 and ugly design.


You are assuming that if they do not follow your flexible
width design they will fail.

Of course not. It's a big problem, that's just one part of it. But if
you throw a fixed-pixel design out at a market that can't make use of
it, then they'll ignore it.

Does bad usability hurt a site? Well you've probably heard of eBay,
and unless you're an old UK web-hack, I doubt you've heard of QXL. Yet
QXL (in their prime) were the one that had the big UK ad-spend, and
the better brand recognition in the UK. Lousy site though, and they
died as a result.

You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.

As a contractor I can't really fail. I simply work on one site, or a
different site. Like doctors, contractors simply bury their mistakes
and move on! :cool:


You specialise in graphically intensive site based around video
playback, and with a strong graphic content to the "framing" of this
video too. That's certainly the sweet spot for Flash and fixed-pixel
design. I doubt if fluid design has anything to offer you here, when
the only purpose of the "page" is to be the border around a video
streamer that's already fixed to one size. TV doesn't get any better
if you watch it on a Bang & Olufsen than an a Matsui.

At the same time though, we're building _sites_ here, not just pages.
What use is it if the "Watch footage of Snoop Dogg's last concert"
page is safely fixed-pixel bbut also the pure-text "Dates for the next
tour" page is too? For band / gig sites in particular, I do a lot of
my access from weirdly sized mobile devices. I'm checking ticket
availability, I'm signing up for the ticket lottery, I'm checking if
the delayed gig is actually goign to go ahead tonight whilst I'm
driving there.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Andy said:
That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
made out of printed paper"

I will give an example of the problem of fixed width design and the web
as a non-canvas dimension specific media. How may of you had the
"pleasure" of finding so information on the web and wished to have a
hard copy of it. But because the "designer" designed for a preconceived
canvas dimensions, you print out the page only to find you are missing
the entire right-hand strip of the content! Okay so you zero out all
your printing margins and DAMN still missing some of the right. So now
you select "fit content to page" and you are successful in getting all
the content but it it too damn small to read! Okay so you force
landscape and get what you wish... Have had a number of flash sites with
this "feature".

With a true liquid layout, the canvas dimension does not matter, so
where the client is viewing or printing they can get the information
with the flexibility of font size, style, and print-out size.

Confessions folks, how many of you have had to copy and paste part of a
badly designed webpage into a temp document in order to get a decent
print out?
 
T

Travis Newbury

If they disagree with me by continuing to think that, "the web is made
out of printed paper" then they _are_ wrong! You might just as well
say that the Internet is a series of tubes.

The only thing anyone is disagreeing on is whether or not flexible
width is the only "correct" way to build a website. And we just have
different opinions on that.
Of course. To recycle some trite slogan from McCola or whoever it was,
"Your burger, your way". Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
prevents choice.

Choice of what? Font size? window size? Who cares. As a developer
of a website I may not want to give you that choice. You may say
that is the problem, I would say that is the solution to a problem.
In no way am I suggesting that good web design is about grey
backgrounds, HTML 2 and ugly design.

Neither am I
Of course not. It's a big problem, that's just one part of it. But if
you throw a fixed-pixel design out at a market that can't make use of
it, then they'll ignore it.

There is the key, you assume they can't, but in the real world
virtually all do see it exactly the way that the designers planned. I
can not think of a commercial website that is fixed width that does
not function on everyone's browser. Can you? Show me an example.

So what if you have to resize your window. I have to resize mine when
I get to a flexible width site because they tend to look like crap at
the resolution and window size I use.

Fixed width or flexible is a preference. It is a preference with the
visitor, as well as the owner.
Does bad usability hurt a site? Well you've probably heard of eBay,
and unless you're an old UK web-hack, I doubt you've heard of QXL. Yet
QXL (in their prime) were the one that had the big UK ad-spend, and
the better brand recognition in the UK. Lousy site though, and they
died as a result.

So they had a lousy site. How do you link that with fixed width.
There are so many more things that could have driven people away.

As a contractor I can't really fail. I simply work on one site, or a
different site. Like doctors, contractors simply bury their mistakes
and move on! :cool:

I am the same, but with entertainment and sports sites.

You specialise in graphically intensive site based around video
playback, and with a strong graphic content to the "framing" of this
video too. That's certainly the sweet spot for Flash and fixed-pixel
design. I doubt if fluid design has anything to offer you here, when
the only purpose of the "page" is to be the border around a video
streamer that's already fixed to one size. TV doesn't get any better
if you watch it on a Bang & Olufsen than an a Matsui.

Bingo! And do you know how many entertainment sites there are? And
have you not heard me say that what I do for entertainment sites does
NOT always work with other kinds of sites? And your impression of
video seems to be a box like a TV. My video interacts with the page.
Many times you can not tell where the video ends and the site begins
(thank you alpha channel)
At the same time though, we're building _sites_ here, not just pages.

My designs are not always just pages.
What use is it if the "Watch footage of Snoop Dogg's last concert"
page is safely fixed-pixel bbut also the pure-text "Dates for the next
tour" page is too? For band / gig sites in particular, I do a lot of
my access from weirdly sized mobile devices. I'm checking ticket
availability, I'm signing up for the ticket lottery, I'm checking if
the delayed gig is actually goign to go ahead tonight whilst I'm
driving there.

The site is not meant for your pda or phone. It "could have been" but
it's not. Snoop said "hmmm, we can either have the site designed the
way my fans want it, or we can create one that is usable by a cell
phone" (and yes, in this case they two are mutually exclusive) They
chose to pleases the masses rather than the few.

Look, I am not saying that fixed width is better or worse. I am
saying that only a fool discounts a viable option before they look at
the whole picture.
 
D

dorayme

<[email protected]
m>,
Travis Newbury said:
One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
can and can not do (should or should not)

Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.

Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
sun, its lightning...
 
T

Travis Newbury

I will give an example of the problem of fixed width design and the web
as a non-canvas dimension specific media. How may of you had the
"pleasure" of finding so information on the web and wished to have a
hard copy of it. But because the "designer" designed for a preconceived
canvas dimensions, you print out the page only to find you are missing
the entire right-hand strip of the content!

I have, all the time on msdn
Okay so you...

We could continue to create scenarios all day long... What if this,
what if that...

This kind of brings up the point I have been trying to make. Nothing
you put out there will ever please 100% of the sites visitors.
NOTHING, not fixed width not flexible, not Flash, not "fill in the
blank here". You will never achieve a website that every single
person that goes to that site says "Damn, this site is perfect in
every way!"

Sometimes the MAJORITY of your visitors are happier with flexible,
sometimes with fixed, sometimes with Flash, sometime with Javascript
menus, sometimes with nothing but text. The "keys" (notice the "s")
to the success of a website is a balance of content that is important
to your visitor, and a presentation of that content that is also
enjoyable to the visitor.

If you do not have that balance you will fail every time. The visitor
has to want the information you have, and they have to be able to
receive that information in a manner that pleases them. And stating
that everyone or even the majority prefer flexible websites is just
not true.

I would even suggest that most people never even give it a though
either way.
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:28:28
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
That is because that is all they contracted me to do.

Just pullin' yor leg. Business-wise, no argument stands up to your own.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,906
Latest member
SkinfixSkintag

Latest Threads

Top