Resolution change Web Page Contents Settings

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Kris, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. Kris

    Kris Guest

    In article <c1c883$1gidoj$-berlin.de>,
    "Asad Kazmi" <> wrote:

    > 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>

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <c1c883$1gidoj$-berlin.de>,
    > "Asad Kazmi" <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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>


    That's just not the case. It totally depends on the site content and your
    target audience :)
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kris

    Kris Guest

    In article <c1cp53$1dpm1a$-berlin.de>,
    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:

    > > 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 :)


    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?

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <c1cp53$1dpm1a$-berlin.de>,
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > 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 :)

    >
    > Screen resolution and browser window size *are* unrelated.


    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).
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 23, 2004
    #4
  5. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > "Kris" <> wrote in message
    > news:4all.nl...

    [snip]
    >> 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

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
    http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
     
    Barry Pearson, Feb 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Asad Kazmi wrote:
    > 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
     
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Feb 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Kris

    Kris Guest

    In article <c1cta6$1hfmgr$-berlin.de>,
    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:

    > > 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?


    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.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Kris

    kchayka Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > "Kris" <> wrote in message
    > news:4all.nl...
    >
    >> 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?


    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.

    --
    Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Feb 23, 2004
    #8
  9. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > "Kris" <> wrote in message
    > news:4all.nl...
    >> In article <c1cp53$1dpm1a$-berlin.de>,
    >> "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> 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 :)

    >>
    >> Screen resolution and browser window size *are* unrelated.

    >
    > 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
    > .......... <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.
     
    Disco Octopus, Feb 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <c1cta6$1hfmgr$-berlin.de>,
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > 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?

    >
    > 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?


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

    >
    > > It might not be "right", but it is what's out there, and what clients

    (and
    > > audience) expect.

    >
    > 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.

    > > 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?


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

    >
    > > 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'?


    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.

    >
    > > 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?


    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".

    >
    > > 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?


    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'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.


    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?

    >
    > > 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.


    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 :)

    >
    > > 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?


    Design, image, brand, typography...

    >
    > > 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.


    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).

    >
    > > 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.


    And I offered a counter argument :)
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "kchayka" <> wrote in message
    news:c1dvfg$1gis8a$-berlin.de...
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    > > "Kris" <> wrote in message
    > > news:4all.nl...
    > >
    > >> 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?

    >
    > 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!

    >
    > > 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.


    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.
    >
    > > Most commercial sites employ this.

    >
    > Are you a lemming, too?


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


    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, Feb 23, 2004
    #11
  12. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Disco Octopus" <> wrote in message
    news:Nxv_b.16$...
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    > > "Kris" <> wrote in message
    > > news:4all.nl...
    > >> In article <c1cp53$1dpm1a$-berlin.de>,
    > >> "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>> 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 :)
    > >>
    > >> Screen resolution and browser window size *are* unrelated.

    > >
    > > 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
    > > .......... <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.


    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 :)
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Kris

    Kris Guest

    In article <c1e0ko$1ftic3$-berlin.de>,
    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:

    > > > > 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?

    > >
    > > 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?

    >
    > Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites :)
    >
    > >
    > > > It might not be "right", but it is what's out there, and what clients

    > (and
    > > > audience) expect.

    > >
    > > 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.


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

    >
    > > > 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?

    >
    > 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?

    > > > 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'?

    >
    > 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?

    > > > 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?

    >
    > 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.

    > > > 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?

    >
    > 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'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.

    >
    > 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.

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


    > 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.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > 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.

    > > > 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?

    >
    > 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.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > 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".

    > > > 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.

    >
    > 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
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Kris

    Kris Guest

    In article <c1e1bu$1hbipi$-berlin.de>,
    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:

    > > >> 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?


    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'.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <c1e1bu$1hbipi$-berlin.de>,
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > >> 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?

    >
    > 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'.
    >
    > --
    > Kris
    > <> (nl)
    > <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>


    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.
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Kris

    kchayka Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:
    > "kchayka" <> wrote in message
    > news:c1dvfg$1gis8a$-berlin.de...
    >> SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >> > 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.

    >
    > 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?

    >> Text is sized in em units, so an appropriate unit for a fixed width of
    >> textual content is also em.
    >> 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.


    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.

    >> Are you a lemming, too?

    >
    > 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?

    >> 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.


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

    "Kris" <> wrote
    >> Can you give examples of content and
    >> audiences that defend your statement?


    SpaceGirl wrote:
    > 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. :)

    --
    Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Feb 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Kris

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "Kris" <> wrote in message
    news:4all.nl...
    > In article <c1e0ko$1ftic3$-berlin.de>,
    > "SpaceGirl" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > 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?
    > > >
    > > > 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?

    > >
    > > Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites :)
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > It might not be "right", but it is what's out there, and what

    clients
    > > (and
    > > > > audience) expect.
    > > >
    > > > 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.

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

    > >
    > > 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?



    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'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'?

    > >
    > > 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?


    hardly

    >
    > > > > 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?

    > >
    > > 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.


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

    >
    > > 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.


    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.

    > > > > 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?

    > >
    > > 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'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.

    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > 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?

    > > 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.


    are you a designer? :eek:

    > > 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.


    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?

    >
    > > > > 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.

    > >
    > > 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.


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

    >
    > > 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.


    There cant be many web sites you visit then :)

    >
    > > 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.


    Yep, but not without a possitive side.

    > > 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.


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

    > > > > 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?

    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > > > > 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.

    > >
    > > 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".
    >
    > > > > 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.

    > >
    > > 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
    > <> (nl)
    > <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    SpaceGirl, Feb 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Kris

    Asad Kazmi Guest

    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
     
    Asad Kazmi, Feb 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Toby A Inkster, Feb 24, 2004
    #19
  20. SpaceGirl wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Feb 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andrew FPGA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,000
    Andrew FPGA
    Sep 26, 2005
  2. Siegfried Heintze
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,318
    Siegfried Heintze
    Oct 24, 2005
  3. Desk-of-David
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,266
    Desk-of-David
    Apr 6, 2007
  4. leeanne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,912
    leeanne
    Sep 24, 2008
  5. donet programmer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,615
    Gregory A. Beamer
    Nov 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page