Lauri said:
Sorry, from what I read it sounded like you did not.
But I have never understood how *broken* layout would impress
anybody.
Millions of people enjoy sites that you would consider broken every day.
If they were changed it may not please as many. And there is no way
to prove it either way other than certain types of sites tend to have a
similar look and feel and tend to use the same technologies.
Maybe it is like this because it is working?.
The very cool layout only has benefits when it actually works - if there
is flaw, it makes whole layout not cool.
You know for years I used IE, Everything looked great. Now I use FF,
and everything still looks great. (I think there is even a thread about
this earlier) Very rarely do I ever run into a site that does not look
fine. And when I do, I am not all worried about it, and leave the site
because it does not look perfect. I tend to believe (no proof) that
others tend to look at the web the same way. If the layout is a little
off, so what. The content is still there, I can still read it, and it
looks fine.
What percentage of visitors would have to see a few pixels off for you
to consider the site to be broken?
The numbers might be 90% and 99% as well, I have no statistical proof.
But I think it is clear that flexible layout has bigger succes rate. (as
long as it is done right - just doing layout using CSS is no guarantee
of anything.)
For what kind of site? Different sites attract different kinds of
people. I completely agree, for some sites a flexible layout is the way
to go. But I feel for others it is not. I also have no statistical
proof other than my own personal experience.
weak (and over used) comeback to say the least.
are good when you can't think anything else? I belive
great deal on how design can change things. Good design creates image
that people behind know their stuff. If it is beutiful, they are
obviously creative. But if it breaks, well, nice try, but...
You can never achieve 100% So you do what it takes to make the people
most likely to use your site the happiest. Sometimes that is flexible,
sometimes not. Totally depends on the site.
I know that you can't design website that don't have broken design with
using pixels as unit.
I absolutely agree. It WILL break on someone's browser. But that it
irrelevant when you look at the big picture.
Sure, but both cases, it has not much to do with layout... At least,
design of both sites sucks so badly...
In your opinion they suck. Millions of others love them just they way
they are.
There seems to be som sort of fixation among pixel perfect people that
they think all people that don't agree them would only use text for
everything etc.
Much like the fixation that a layout is broken if it doesn't work on
every machine. The wind blows both ways.
The starwars site uses flash. So why not do it well, so that it fills
browser nicely. With flash, they should not limit themselves by bitmap
graphics.
Actually, site works in about 800 wide window just fine, when I force it
to fit it (Opera 8b3: Fit to width). There is some zooming artifacts, but
using vectors for fonts would take them away.
Why make an obviously flawed and misleading statement like that? You
obviously have knowledge of what vector graphics are, so you also know
that not every image can be effectively drawn with vectors.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just think you have to look
at sites as individually. What works on one site may or may not work on
a different site.