Resolution change Web Page Contents Settings

[Kris]

I created a web pages with ASP extention in 800 X 600 Resolution and when i
switch to 1024 X 786 it changes the web page contents setting , so what
shall i do to keep my web page alined ?

Screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated. Build pages
that are flexible with unpredictable factors.
<http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign>

 

[SpaceGirl]

Screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated. Build pages
that are flexible with unpredictable factors.
<http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign>

That's just not the case. It totally depends on the site content and your
target audience

 

[Kris]

Screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated. Build pages
that are flexible with unpredictable factors.
<http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign>

That's just not the case. It totally depends on the site content and your
target audience [/QUOTE]

Screen resolution and browser window size *are* unrelated.

Maybe you try to make a point for building sites that not flexibly
adjust to a window's size. Can you give examples of content and
audiences that defend your statement?

 

[SpaceGirl]

That's just not the case. It totally depends on the site content and your
target audience

Screen resolution and browser window size *are* unrelated.[/QUOTE]

Yes of course. How can a web page ever tell if you are viewing 800x600 on a
21" display, or 800x600 on a 15" display? Not possible.

Maybe you try to make a point for building sites that not flexibly
adjust to a window's size. Can you give examples of content and
audiences that defend your statement?

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on? Sometimes design
and readability dictates a "fixed" size. Most commercial sites employ this.
It might not be "right", but it is what's out there, and what clients (and
audience) expect. For example, the audience who browse MTV are different
from the audience that browse amazon.com (which is not a fixed design).
That's because Amazon has a single purpose, and "pretty design" is far less
important than the content (selling products). Most online physical
retailers who also have online facilities tend to have FIXED designs because
their "image" is as important as their physical products. In some cases
there IS no physical product (such as MTV, which is ALL image). Flexible
design results in "broken" design... it's almost impossible to design a
graphic heavy site and allow content scaling. You also have to balance this
with what people are using. *most* people are running at 800x600 or
1024x768. The average display size is around 17". So you can pretty much bet
that your target is going to fall somewhere within this average. It comes
down to who is buying the products you are selling, who is going to be
interested in the information on your site? If you are targeting the average
market (MTV watching 20-something's, for example) you know that they are
likely to be attracted by "image" as much as content; they are also more
likely to buy online too.

It's all a balancing act. There are no rules. Flexible design is a nice
concept, but just not really achievable; this is pretty much a technical
limit. Perhaps if all browsers "scaled" their content (like scaling the page
as a bitmap; I don't mean "enlarging a typeface", which is a disaster for
most commercial designs).

 

[Barry Pearson]

Maybe you try to make a point for building sites that not flexibly
adjust to a window's size. Can you give examples of content and
audiences that defend your statement?

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on? Sometimes
design and readability dictates a "fixed" size. [snip]
Flexible design
results in "broken" design... it's almost impossible to design a
graphic heavy site and allow content scaling.

[snip]

Yes, and it isn't just graphics. When you look at the content of many pages,
you can find all sorts of other problems, for example forms, the length of
link-text, etc.

Last year, I looked at some of the sites you quoted above, and others, and
came to the conclusion that for many sites, the overall layout, both in width
and position, tends to be heavily constrained. It isn't just a problem with
viewport widths, it is also a problem with trying to redesign via changes to
the CSS alone. (See page at the link below).

Sometimes, about the only layout change I can make to my tableless layouts by
changing only the CSS is to swap left & right. Although, nowadays I try to
achieve flexible widths by confining the flexibility to one column and not
putting restrictive material in that particular column. The on-line news
services could usefully go further in that direction, and Wired has done so.

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/content_presentation/layout.htm

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Hi,

I created a web pages with ASP extention in 800 X 600 Resolution and when i
switch to 1024 X 786 it changes the web page contents setting , so what
shall i do to keep my web page alined ?

<http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign>


Matthias

 

[Kris]

Maybe you try to make a point for building sites that not flexibly
adjust to a window's size. Can you give examples of content and
audiences that defend your statement?

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on?[/QUOTE]

Why are they "good" examples? Do you have argumentation why their
content or audience dictates a fixed layout? Or is it the 'big sites do
it'-bandwagon?

Sometimes design
and readability dictates a "fixed" size. Most commercial sites employ this.

Well, why?

It might not be "right", but it is what's out there, and what clients (and
audience) expect.

What is that assumption based on?

For example, the audience who browse MTV are different
from the audience that browse amazon.com (which is not a fixed design).

You base your statement on visual differences between examples. But what
is the underlying principle?

That's because Amazon has a single purpose, and "pretty design" is far less
important than the content (selling products).

So, fixed design is 'more pretty'?

Most online physical
retailers who also have online facilities tend to have FIXED designs because
their "image" is as important as their physical products.

So, fixed design establishes image?

In some cases
there IS no physical product (such as MTV, which is ALL image). Flexible
design results in "broken" design...

What is the argumentation for that bold statement?

it's almost impossible to design a
graphic heavy site and allow content scaling.

It is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. It is not easy
because it is different from the slicing-game.

You also have to balance this
with what people are using. *most* people are running at 800x600 or
1024x768.

Me too. My browser window is not anything remotely resembling that size.
As I said, screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated.

The average display size is around 17". So you can pretty much bet
that your target is going to fall somewhere within this average. It comes
down to who is buying the products you are selling, who is going to be
interested in the information on your site?

Something that definately matters. You however see somehow a
justification in that for using a fixed width design. You have not
convinced me yet.

If you are targeting the average
market (MTV watching 20-something's, for example) you know that they are
likely to be attracted by "image" as much as content; they are also more
likely to buy online too.

True. But how does that relate to screen resolution, window size or a
fixed design?

It's all a balancing act. There are no rules. Flexible design is a nice
concept, but just not really achievable; this is pretty much a technical
limit.

It requires practice and common sense, not ImageReady on autopilot. It
is really achievable.

Perhaps if all browsers "scaled" their content (like scaling the page
as a bitmap; I don't mean "enlarging a typeface", which is a disaster for
most commercial designs).

I am not saying that fixed design has no place. I am saying however that
a design as flexible as possible should always be the first choice and
that one needs very good reasons to differ from that. As long as Mr. OP
gives no specific reasons that lead me to conclude he needs a fixed
design, I will advice him to design a flexible layout.

 

[kchayka]

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on?

I can see no valid reason for any of these sites to be fixed widths.

Sometimes design and readability dictates a "fixed" size.

A width fixed in pixels does nothing to aid readability. I run into it
all the time. A 150px wide column might not be so bad when the font
size is puny, like 9px, but what do you think happens for someone who
needs text twice that size (like me)? It sucks.

Text is sized in em units, so an appropriate unit for a fixed width of
textual content is also em. Sometimes % of window is a better choice,
it depends on what the text is. Regardless, pixels have very little to
do with it. Use the right tool for the job. Pixels ain't it.

All of those sites you mentioned suffer the same readability problems at
enlarged text sizes. Most multi-columned sites do. They suck, and I
for one am sick of it.

Most commercial sites employ this.

Are you a lemming, too?

You also have to balance this
with what people are using. *most* people are running at 800x600 or
1024x768. The average display size is around 17". So you can pretty much bet
that your target is going to fall somewhere within this average.

Surely you're not implying that cnn or bbc have such limited target
audiences? That's ludicrous.

 

[Disco Octopus]

Yes of course. How can a web page ever tell if you are viewing
800x600 on a 21" display, or 800x600 on a 15" display? Not possible.


mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on? Sometimes
design and readability dictates a "fixed" size. Most commercial sites
.......... <snip>

Well, I /think/ I understand what you are saying. Maybe it is not a fixed
size that these sites require... maybe it is simply a maximum width. These
sites look good at there width, but when I look at them on my pda, for me to
read the whole page, I need to not only scroll up and down, but constantly
left and right.

This site www.choicebeefjerky.com.au for example has been designed to have a
maximum width, but it is also viewable to viewers with small res browsers.

Apart from the way a site looks, even to the viewers that want lots of
images and colours, the site should also not be difficult to view for some
viewers.

You mentioned the /MTV watching 20-something's/, well, I would also say that
the /MTV watching 20-something's/ are the ones that will be into surfing the
internet via a handheld device. these sites you have given examples of will
be difficult for them to view.

 

[SpaceGirl]

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on?

Why are they "good" examples? Do you have argumentation why their
content or audience dictates a fixed layout? Or is it the 'big sites do
it'-bandwagon?

Sometimes design
and readability dictates a "fixed" size. Most commercial sites employ

this.

Well, why?[/QUOTE]

Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites

What is that assumption based on?

I would assume the design firms behind the large commercial sites have done
thier research. Putting that asside, it's to do with design, rather than
content.

You base your statement on visual differences between examples. But what
is the underlying principle?

There is none, other than "sell an image" or "sell a product".

So, fixed design is 'more pretty'?

Not always, but usually. A great deal of the media we consume these days is
"little substance, lots of style". This isn't a particuarly good thing, but
it's the commercial world we live in.

So, fixed design establishes image?

No, it is one way of pressenting an image. This is always what gets me. This
isn't black and white. Example; the layout of a zine like Glamour is very
distinctive. A lot of style over content. Compare this to other printed
media, such as the Times newspaper. It would be very easy to translate
something like the Times into a flexible scalable layout on screen. To
reproduce the content of something like Glamour online would be almost
impossible with "flexible layout".

What is the argumentation for that bold statement?

The MTV web site does not sell a product, other than it's own image (which
drives people to their channel, which sells advert space etc etc). In the
case of the MTV site, the graphical elements (bitmaps) are critical. Ask any
typographer about layout

It is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. It is not easy
because it is different from the slicing-game.

It is impossible. Say you have graphical elements that contain type; such as
company brand, brand placement, album artwork etc etc. From and design and
typographical point of view everything has to be placed specifically. Now,
if suddenly all the page text is twice the size, what effect does this have
on the unscaled components of the page?

Me too. My browser window is not anything remotely resembling that size.
As I said, screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated.

Ah, but you see, you are wrong If you are reading a newspaper and your
view is obscured by another bit of paper on your desk, you move it, right?
So if your browser window is too small, you make it bigger. People aren't
stupid... the vast majority of commercial sites are designed for around 750
x 450 because designs know that the target audience will be able to fit this
on screen; and that even if they have their default browser window popup at
300x300 they are competent enough to resize the thing

Something that definately matters. You however see somehow a
justification in that for using a fixed width design. You have not
convinced me yet.


True. But how does that relate to screen resolution, window size or a
fixed design?

Design, image, brand, typography...

It requires practice and common sense, not ImageReady on autopilot. It
is really achievable.

Design does take some degree of compitence for sure... any fool can stick
something together in PhotoShop, slice and dice and shove it online. That's
not good enough for commercial clients or their audience. And thanks to the
poor design of all modern browers, we're stuck in a situation where the
"best" designs tend to be fixed (or even worse, Flash).

I am not saying that fixed design has no place. I am saying however that
a design as flexible as possible should always be the first choice and
that one needs very good reasons to differ from that. As long as Mr. OP
gives no specific reasons that lead me to conclude he needs a fixed
design, I will advice him to design a flexible layout.

And I offered a counter argument

 

[SpaceGirl]

I can see no valid reason for any of these sites to be fixed widths.

design it's SO easy to spot a coder from a distance you know!

A width fixed in pixels does nothing to aid readability. I run into it
all the time. A 150px wide column might not be so bad when the font
size is puny, like 9px, but what do you think happens for someone who
needs text twice that size (like me)? It sucks.

It sucks, yes. Lower the resolution on your display.

Text is sized in em units, so an appropriate unit for a fixed width of
textual content is also em. Sometimes % of window is a better choice,
it depends on what the text is. Regardless, pixels have very little to
do with it. Use the right tool for the job. Pixels ain't it.

Until images scale with text, "pixel ain't it" might be a happy matra, but
sadly it's not mirrored in reality.

All of those sites you mentioned suffer the same readability problems at
enlarged text sizes. Most multi-columned sites do. They suck, and I
for one am sick of it.


Are you a lemming, too?

Do you buy magazines, watch TV, go to to movies? Then, you are a lemming
too...

Surely you're not implying that cnn or bbc have such limited target
audiences? That's ludicrous.

Not at all; I know nothing about their target demographic. But I do build
web sites for large music companies, and I know *their* target audience;
Here's an example of one of our clients other sites (not one I built);
http://www.eminem.com/ Difficult to see how that could be achieved with a
scalable layout. Before you screen shock horror that it's a flash site - for
*this* demographic Flash is perfectly acceptable.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Well, I /think/ I understand what you are saying. Maybe it is not a fixed
size that these sites require... maybe it is simply a maximum width. These
sites look good at there width, but when I look at them on my pda, for me to
read the whole page, I need to not only scroll up and down, but constantly
left and right.

This site www.choicebeefjerky.com.au for example has been designed to have a
maximum width, but it is also viewable to viewers with small res browsers.

Apart from the way a site looks, even to the viewers that want lots of
images and colours, the site should also not be difficult to view for some
viewers.

You mentioned the /MTV watching 20-something's/, well, I would also say that
the /MTV watching 20-something's/ are the ones that will be into surfing the
internet via a handheld device. these sites you have given examples of will
be difficult for them to view.

It's a falicy to think the net is designed for PDAs... what happens if you
hit a site with streaming video, flash, or a large graphic?

I have a cellphone that also browses the net... at around 250x100 pixels...!
My provider has a link to lots of sites that provide content for hand-held
devices. Our own company's logo wont even fit on my phones screen

 

[Kris]

Why are they "good" examples? Do you have argumentation why their
content or audience dictates a fixed layout? Or is it the 'big sites do
it'-bandwagon?
this.

Well, why?

Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites

What is that assumption based on?

I would assume the design firms behind the large commercial sites have done
thier research. Putting that asside, it's to do with design, rather than
content.[/QUOTE]

Basically, all of this above unites to your only argument for a fixed
desig: "MTV, BBC, CNN and others do it too".

There is none, other than "sell an image" or "sell a product".

I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate? What is the correlation
between a fixed design and selling an image or product?

Not always, but usually. A great deal of the media we consume these days is
"little substance, lots of style". This isn't a particuarly good thing, but
it's the commercial world we live in.

That you see a lot of fixed designs out there of which some are quite
impressive leads you to conclude that one needs a fixed design to have a
pretty website?

No, it is one way of pressenting an image. This is always what gets me. This
isn't black and white. Example; the layout of a zine like Glamour is very
distinctive. A lot of style over content. Compare this to other printed
media, such as the Times newspaper. It would be very easy to translate
something like the Times into a flexible scalable layout on screen.

Ah! There is the catch!

What you actually mean is that a fixed layout is easier to (re)produce
from a still image.

To
reproduce the content of something like Glamour online would be almost
impossible with "flexible layout".

<http://www.glamouronline.it/>? That would actually be quite easy.
I am convinced that if they get to their senses one day and change it to
a flexible layout, you would not even notice it at first.

The MTV web site does not sell a product, other than it's own image (which
drives people to their channel, which sells advert space etc etc). In the
case of the MTV site, the graphical elements (bitmaps) are critical. Ask any
typographer about layout

I am convinced of that. You however seem to claim that flexible layout
equals to inferior graphical quality. I don't see you give any
argumentation to support that claim.

It is impossible.

Please supply me with some examples of what you call a graphic-heavy
site and I will try to convince you it is not impossible.

Say you have graphical elements that contain type; such as
company brand, brand placement, album artwork etc etc. From and design and
typographical point of view everything has to be placed specifically.

Of course not.

Now,
if suddenly all the page text is twice the size, what effect does this have
on the unscaled components of the page?

An argument for not using graphics for text. If scaling font-sizes and
other strengths of the web frustrate you, you are clearly in the wrong
business.

Ah, but you see, you are wrong If you are reading a newspaper and your
view is obscured by another bit of paper on your desk, you move it, right?

I don't see how that relates to my browser window.

So if your browser window is too small, you make it bigger.

If I find the website worth the effort, I may. I prefer websites that do
not attempt to force me to do that.

People aren't
stupid... the vast majority of commercial sites are designed for around 750
x 450 because designs know that the target audience will be able to fit this
on screen;

Which makes the website only reasonably usable in windows >750px and
creates useless space above that width. It is a weakness of fixed
designs.

and that even if they have their default browser window popup at
300x300 they are competent enough to resize the thing

That is the exact reason why one should *not* try to second guess a set
window size.

Design, image, brand, typography...

You have delivered no argument that prove the relationship between a
fixed design and design, image, brand, typography.

I am a professional webdesigner that deals with this issues on a daily
basis. I know of the 'limitations' that a flexible design seems to have
at first glance. I also know that most are unfounded.

Design does take some degree of compitence for sure... any fool can stick
something together in PhotoShop, slice and dice and shove it online. That's
not good enough for commercial clients or their audience. And thanks to the
poor design of all modern browers, we're stuck in a situation where the
"best" designs tend to be fixed (or even worse, Flash).

I agree that most designs found on the web are unfortunately a fixed
width. That is however not the same as "a good design must be fixed".

And I offered a counter argument

You have not offered any argument at all, only claims and examples of
fixed designs without any explanation on why they are fixed.

 

[Kris]

[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood my question. I asked not for examples of websites, I
asked for examples of content and their audience that 'require a fixed
layout'.

 

[SpaceGirl]

You misunderstood my question. I asked not for examples of websites, I
asked for examples of content and their audience that 'require a fixed
layout'.
[/QUOTE]

Those sites I mentioned are examples of both

Don't you get it, it's not just about content it's about Design with a big
D. Art, Design, Image, whatever you want to call it. By saying "don't fix
the size" is just as limiting as saying "all designs must be fixed". It's
about what you want to achieve; what image you want to present to your
audience. Sites could be either, but for some applications of design, fixed
width provides the time of image that is demanded by some end users. And
when I say demanded, I mean "what they expect" rather than what they ask
for.

 

[kchayka]

design it's SO easy to spot a coder from a distance you know!

"design" is an excuse, not a reason. It's SO easy to spot a deezyner!

Lower the resolution on your display.

So now we're back in the "best viewed in..." days? Spare me, please.
My resolution is just peachy as is. Why should the rest of my work
suffer just because of some poorly designed web sites?

Until images scale with text, "pixel ain't it" might be a happy matra, but
sadly it's not mirrored in reality.

Spoken like a true deezyner, methinks. BTW, Opera already does what you
suggest, and it's actually a big reason why I don't use it. Microfonts
and fixed widths may annoy me, but horizontal scrolling annoys me even
more. Page zoom invariably causes horizontal scrolling that wasn't
there before.

Do you buy magazines, watch TV, go to to movies? Then, you are a lemming
too...

You lost me. What do any of these things have to do with designing a
flexible web page?

Not at all; I know nothing about their target demographic.

You don't? That's odd. I'll requote:

mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on?

If you don't know their target demographic, how did you come to list
those sites as examples, then go on to defend their fixed designs?
You're starting to smell like a troll, you know.

Here's an example of one of our clients other sites (not one I built);
http://www.eminem.com/ Difficult to see how that could be achieved with a
scalable layout.

You're joking. It's a fixed width because that's how graphic designers
seem to think - every pixel in its place. I fail to see how this
particular site benefits from a fixed width (or frames, for that
matter). In smaller windows, there aren't even any horizontal
scrollbars so the nav bar gets chopped off. Yeah, it's a great design.

Before you screen shock horror that it's a flash site - for
*this* demographic Flash is perfectly acceptable.

Flash has its place - video game playing teenage boys come to mind. I'm
not in that particular target audience. Hate rap, too.

 

[SpaceGirl]

employ
this.

Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites
clients
(and

I would assume the design firms behind the large commercial sites have done
thier research. Putting that asside, it's to do with design, rather than
content.

Basically, all of this above unites to your only argument for a fixed
desig: "MTV, BBC, CNN and others do it too".

There is none, other than "sell an image" or "sell a product".

I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate? What is the correlation
between a fixed design and selling an image or product?[/QUOTE]


image/brand (this argument is going to get circular lol). A web site is
another channel to sell, or market a product. The design would/should match
the brand. This could either be fixed or flexible (I dont like splitting
like this; even fixed designs are actually flexible, but that's a different
topic). If you are to make a site scale to the size of the page, it makes it
VERY hard to match offline design online (but then this depends again on the
product, yes?)

That you see a lot of fixed designs out there of which some are quite
impressive leads you to conclude that one needs a fixed design to have a
pretty website?
hardly


Ah! There is the catch!

What you actually mean is that a fixed layout is easier to (re)produce
from a still image.

Rather than easier, lets just go with "possible".

<http://www.glamouronline.it/>? That would actually be quite easy.
I am convinced that if they get to their senses one day and change it to
a flexible layout, you would not even notice it at first.

If that were the case, why aren't people doing it? I've demonstrated lots of
sites. I'd love to see some from you. Find me a site that comes close to
www.mtv.co.uk that employs flexible layout, that can be happily read in a
300 x 300 window, without lossing branding.

I am convinced of that. You however seem to claim that flexible layout
equals to inferior graphical quality. I don't see you give any
argumentation to support that claim.


Please supply me with some examples of what you call a graphic-heavy
site and I will try to convince you it is not impossible.

Maybe you meant a site like <http://www.quark.com/>?

Sure good example. The content is not flexible. Try shrinking it below 700
pixels. The page gets cropped. Try switching your browser to extra large
fonts. The content grows, but what about the menus?

Of course not.

are you a designer?

An argument for not using graphics for text. If scaling font-sizes and
other strengths of the web frustrate you, you are clearly in the wrong
business.

I agree it's bad practice for blocks of text; but when type is part of the
design (graphics) how can you avoid it? Or do we place yet another limit on
design. No images with text at all.

I think, if you believe strongly that there is no place for "fixed width"
designs in the business, then you are clearly in the wrong business as the
vast majority of commercial web sites already do this. Whereas I believe
there are viable uses for both fixed and flexible. Wouldn't it be better to
be a more open minded designer?

right?

I don't see how that relates to my browser window.

The desktop, windows, browsers... it's all part of the desktop metaphor.

If I find the website worth the effort, I may. I prefer websites that do
not attempt to force me to do that.

There cant be many web sites you visit then

Which makes the website only reasonably usable in windows >750px and
creates useless space above that width. It is a weakness of fixed
designs.

Yep, but not without a possitive side.

That is the exact reason why one should *not* try to second guess a set
window size.

Show me sites that manage this. Show me a site that can achieve something
like http://www.alienware.com/ and I'll shut up

 

[Asad Kazmi]

Hi,

I created a web pages with ASP extention in 800 X 600 Resolution and when i
switch to 1024 X 786 it changes the web page contents setting , so what
shall i do to keep my web page alined ?


Regards

Aasd Kazmi

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Page zoom invariably causes horizontal scrolling that wasn't there before.

Now that's just not true.

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/slander

Page zooming kicks ass.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Ah, but you see, you are wrong If you are reading a newspaper and your
view is obscured by another bit of paper on your desk, you move it, right?
So if your browser window is too small, you make it bigger.

I must say that's a rather contrived example. Surely you realise that
there's an important difference between a newspaper and a web page?

Due to the physical limitations of the ink-on-paper medium, text in a
newspaper can't reshuffle itself so that you can read around the
obstruction.

However, the web allows for text to reshuffle to account for different
font sizes and browser canvas sizes. Indeed, this is the default behaviour
for all text on the web unless some designer goes to some considerable
effort to hinder it.