should my content be resizable ?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Mel, Dec 15, 2004.

  1. Mel

    Mel Guest

    i see a lot of sites with fixed width and height and on my GIANT screen,
    they all look "kinda" oweful

    why not resizable, so people with large kahuna's can see more ????
    Mel, Dec 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. This is where the coders the the photoshoppers will butt heads.

    You take the detailed layouts away, and this is a breeze. But this isn't 1997
    anymore, and many designers create their works of art first and then worry
    about usability across various resolutions as a second thought.

    A couple interesting topics are using JS redirection based on screen res, and
    image size correlation with text size.

    Both have their upsides and downsides depending on your specific situation.

    The only way to really tackle this issue though is to dummy your designs up,
    but that too comes at a price.
    Matthew Superstar Swass, Dec 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mel

    Karl Core Guest

    "Matthew Superstar Swass" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This is where the coders the the photoshoppers will butt heads.
    >
    > You take the detailed layouts away, and this is a breeze. But this isn't
    > 1997
    > anymore, and many designers create their works of art first and then worry
    > about usability across various resolutions as a second thought.


    Many people shoot heroin for fun. That doesn't make it a good idea.
    While there are certainly a lot of other contributing factors to a site's
    usability, all things being equal, the flexible site will do better in a
    usability test.

    > A couple interesting topics are using JS redirection based on screen res,


    screen resolution != browser window size.
    My monitor is 1680 pixels wide. What size window do you think I browse the
    web with?


    --
    -Karl Core
    Please Support "Project Boneyard":
    http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard
    Karl Core, Dec 15, 2004
    #3
  4. While the city slept, Karl Core () feverishly
    typed...
    > screen resolution != browser window size.
    > My monitor is 1680 pixels wide. What size window do you think I
    > browse the web with?


    4! ..... no... 9!

    ..... oh go on then, I give up. ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
    nice.guy.nige, Dec 15, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>, says...
    > i see a lot of sites with fixed width and height and on my GIANT screen,
    > they all look "kinda" oweful
    > why not resizable, so people with large kahuna's can see more ????


    Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    that look.
    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 16, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <cpq548$71e$>,
    says...
    > > You take the detailed layouts away, and this is a breeze. But this isn't
    > > 1997
    > > anymore, and many designers create their works of art first and then worry
    > > about usability across various resolutions as a second thought.


    > Many people shoot heroin for fun. That doesn't make it a good idea.


    <rolling eyes>
    Great analogy.
    </rolling eyes>

    > While there are certainly a lot of other contributing factors to a site's
    > usability, all things being equal, the flexible site will do better in a
    > usability test.


    Well that only makes sense. With a flexible layout you lose the
    detailed layout look. So you lose some individuality to gain usability.
    It's a trade off.
    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Mel

    Neal Guest

    Travis Newbury:

    > Well that only makes sense. With a flexible layout you lose the
    > detailed layout look. So you lose some individuality to gain usability.
    > It's a trade off.


    So, you're saying that a flexible layout cannot be designed which has
    individuality?

    Are you on dope?
    Neal, Dec 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Mel

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > Travis Newbury:
    >
    >> Well that only makes sense. With a flexible layout you lose the
    >> detailed layout look. So you lose some individuality to gain
    >> usability. It's a trade off.

    >
    > So, you're saying that a flexible layout cannot be designed which has
    > individuality?
    >
    > Are you on dope?


    No, crack.

    I translate fixed width designs from graphic designers into fluid layouts
    all the time.
    Nik Coughin, Dec 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Mel

    rf Guest

    Nea" wrote:
    > Karl Core wrote:


    > > > Many people shoot heroin for fun. That doesn't make it a good idea.

    >
    > Are you on dope?


    Heroin surely.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    > that look.


    Some people like the look of mold. That's not a good reason to eat moldy
    food.
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 16, 2004
    #10
  11. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:09:26 -0000, "nice.guy.nige"
    <> wrote:


    [..]

    >4! ..... no... 9!


    This one goes to 11!

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    contact form:
    http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
    Nick Theodorakis, Dec 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Mel

    rf Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    > that look.


    Could you cite some references where studies have been done on this?

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Dec 16, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    says...

    > > Well that only makes sense. With a flexible layout you lose the
    > > detailed layout look. So you lose some individuality to gain usability.
    > > It's a trade off.

    > So, you're saying that a flexible layout cannot be designed which has
    > individuality?


    Not at all. I am saying the more complex, or detailed a site gets, the
    lower the usability. Technology is a tradeoff.

    > Are you on dope?


    Yes, but that has nothing to do with the fact above.
    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 16, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    says...
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    > > that look.

    > Some people like the look of mold. That's not a good reason to eat moldy
    > food.


    Man, analogy city in this thread. What does that have to do with the
    fact that some people like that look? I did not say it was better.

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 16, 2004
    #14
  15. Mel

    Neal Guest

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:54:00 -0500, Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Travis Newbury wrote:
    >> > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    >> > that look.

    >> Some people like the look of mold. That's not a good reason to eat moldy
    >> food.

    >
    > Man, analogy city in this thread. What does that have to do with the
    > fact that some people like that look? I did not say it was better.


    Wisely too, because it is not better. Most would say it was worse than
    fluid if asked.

    You said that some people prefer the fixed look. We're saying that 1)
    fixed is problematic at many viewport widths 2) fluid will be preferred
    over fixed in usability tests and 3) if you still disagree, show us these
    people who prefer fixed over fluid in a random sampling of actual users.

    You've made the claim which runs contrary to usability studies. Now back
    up your claim with some fact.
    Neal, Dec 16, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <VJ6wd.74406$>,
    rf@.invalid says...
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    > > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    > > that look.

    >
    > Could you cite some references where studies have been done on this?


    Nope I can't. But almost every detailed usability study I have ever
    read (via a link from this group) showed a percentage of people that
    browse like that kind of look for a webpage. I guess anyone that likes
    a flash site would fall into that category.

    Doesn't mean it's better. Only that that group of people exist, and
    thats why some people make a site like that.

    People that make all flash sites, or sites heavy into detailed graphic
    design and fancy "DHTML" make them because they like them. Usability
    usually does not come into play.

    I am not saying it is right, I am explaining why people make them.

    --
    -=*Tn*=-
    Travis Newbury, Dec 16, 2004
    #16
  17. Mel

    Neal Guest

    Travis
    > Neal
    >> So, you're saying that a flexible layout cannot be designed which has
    >> individuality?

    > Not at all. I am saying the more complex, or detailed a site gets, the
    > lower the usability. Technology is a tradeoff.


    This has nothing to do with the preceding statement.

    Fluid layout is no more complex, detailed, or technical than fixed. It's
    simply a matter of doing things a different way.

    The only thing complex about it is that you don't know how. Stop
    projecting your own failings as an author on the whole field of web
    authoring by saying that fixed is too complex. It sure isn't too complex
    for the rest of us.
    Neal, Dec 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Mel

    Neal Guest

    Nick:

    > This one goes to 11!


    Why not just make the screen wider, and have it go up to 10?
    Neal, Dec 16, 2004
    #18
  19. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:35:34 -0500, Leif K-Brooks
    <> wrote:

    >Travis Newbury wrote:
    >> Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    >> that look.

    >
    >Some people like the look of mold. That's not a good reason to eat moldy
    >food.


    Unless it's a good Stilton or Gorgonzola.

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    contact form:
    http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
    Nick Theodorakis, Dec 16, 2004
    #19
  20. Mel

    tm Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > says...
    > > Travis Newbury wrote:


    > > > Re sizable does not allow for a fixed graphics look. Some people like
    > > > that look.


    > > Some people like the look of mold. That's not a good reason to eat moldy
    > > food.

    >
    > Man, analogy city in this thread. What does that have to do with the
    > fact that some people like that look? I did not say it was better.


    Some people say preferable, that doesn't mean better is worthier.
    tm, Dec 16, 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. Thiago Almeida

    Resizable columns on a web datagrid

    Thiago Almeida, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    732
    Thiago Almeida
    Oct 15, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?TWF0dCBIYW1pbHRvbg==?=

    RE: Are datagrids in Windows Application resizable?

    =?Utf-8?B?TWF0dCBIYW1pbHRvbg==?=, Sep 1, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    337
    =?Utf-8?B?Tm9lbCBMYXdhcw==?=
    Sep 2, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Tm9lbCBMYXdhcw==?=

    RE: Are datagrids in Windows Application resizable?

    =?Utf-8?B?Tm9lbCBMYXdhcw==?=, Sep 5, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    373
    Graeme
    Sep 5, 2004
  4. Peabody
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    801
    Blinky the Shark
    Nov 2, 2003
  5. hazz
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    49,403
    SkyUCHC
    Jun 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page