I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate? What is the correlation
between a fixed design and selling an image or product?
OK, let's put it like this.
From a scientific point of view, you often test theories by taking them to
extremes... so let's do that here. Any site, no matter what the content or
how designed, has a minimul usable browser resolution. (I know you don't
like to corelate screen resolution with browser size.) For example, even a
text-only unformatted page wouldn't survive going under about 10 pixels wide
without becoming absolutely unreadable, and would require at least 100
pixels width in order to actually read the page without significant effort.
The same comes into play with any kind of textual or visual content; there
is a minimum usable size inherent in using it. The same may come to play at
higher levels; with an extremely large layout, a flexibly-designed page may
wind up with content which is supposed to be together being spread out.
(Less of a problem, and probably solveable, but still.)
Splitting graphics into multiple parts so that they can lie one under the
other etc can help, but eventually you have a limit based on the width of an
individual part..
So from a technical aspect, every webpage has 1) An absolute minimum
viewable width (one where all content is visible and readable,) and 2) a
minimum coherent view (one where content flows as originally concieved.)
From this, it's only a small jump to what Spacegirl has been talking about;
many sites decide that they do not want to fall below the coherent view
threshold.[/QUOTE]
A site with a fixed layout has only optimal effect on that exact window
width. A flexible layout will have that on that width too, and on
smaller and higher sizes. Of course to a certain extend, but even then,
a well-crafted site degrades to a less pretty but still usable layout.
This is a win-win situation. Unfortunately, few people acknowledge this,
but there is little argumentation from that camp.
Having the site be usable in some form regardless of browser
platform becomes secondary to having the site have a certain set style and
layout.
The same reasoning behind building separate sites for different window
sizes, different web browsers, different bandwidths, etcetera.
Note though, a lot of contrast added, my approach is on the opposite
side of the spectrum; I argue from a user perspective, while SpaceGirl
clearly argues from the corporate perspective.
Bare in mind that for many websites, the web designer may not have
final say in these things; the decision may come from a marketting team or
other area. They don't care about browser compatiblity or low resolutions,
they want dynamic visual sites even if you have to scroll to see all the
content, and sites without many graphics, or with graphics that fall under
each other, just don't make the cut.
I am not arguing the chain of decisionmaking. Actually, it is likely
that the design of the sites SpaceGirl mentioned were not decided on by
designers at all. What we are discussing however, is what to do when a
designer does have the chance to make the decision. She favors fixed
layout for reasons IMO insufficiently explained.
If someone is making their own webpage for themselves, and the webpage is
the thing and the whole of the thing, then flexible layout should probably
be achieveable and desired; but when the content ties in with an existing
style, image, content or product, concessions may be forced upon the
designer which require forced sizing and placement to ensure the design fits
certain parameters.
My opinion is that this conclusion is reached too early on today's web.
I don't believe at all that the designers of all the site that SpaceGirl
mentioned had to go through the phase of balancing the pros and cons; it
is much more likely that they reasoned like SpaceGirl does: "CNN and BBC
are doing it, so must we."
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with this (as a regular mobile internet
user who has a max resolution of 160x160,) but I can understand it. I doubt
a site that had graphics showing;
'Co
ca-
Co
la'
would be tolerated.
Why would it need to show that?
So in short; what Space girl is saying isn't that only Fixed layout sites
can look good, she's just saying that from the point of view of the creator,
sometimes the precise layout of the site is more important that whether the
user has to grab that horizontal scrollbar.
The argument between the designer who thinks from the perspective of
those who has to use his work and the designer who is more of an artist
than a designer.
(And for the record, I must admit she chose bad examples to start with; BBC,
for example, offers low-graphic and text-only versions of much of their
site.)
Let's save that for another discussion.
Let's put it another way; it doesn't *have* to be, but to retain certain
elements from a style point of view it may be... desired.
I am not defending a black-and-white view. I understand that certain
aspects of a design are desired. Respecting that and finding the balance
between that and user centered aspects is what makes for a good website,
in my opinion.
Really? Make a 200 width graphic fit on a 100 width browser screen,
*without* breaking it's appearance.
Thanks for supplying the smiley. I am sure we agree on the nature of
certain content, like bitmap graphics, that is not flexible at all.
Image scaling in browsers is however gaining momentum. If your
smallscreen browser does not scale image above a certain size yet, then
you would surely switch someday soon.
A desktop browser screen of 100 pixels wide on the other hand, makes no
sense. That does not do any good to any design, fixed or flexible, so
let's not even add that to the equation.
I agree. I prefer content-heavy websites with a clean layout, if only
because they tend to work better from my PDA.
Glad to hear at least someone agrees.