should my content be resizable ?

[Travis Newbury]

..

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

And you are right.

You said that some people prefer the fixed look. We're saying that 1)
fixed is problematic at many viewport widths

And it is.

2) fluid will be preferred over fixed in usability tests

And it is.

3) if you still disagree,

I don't disagree at all. You are absolutely right. Most people in a
usability study prefer fluid.

You've made the claim which runs contrary to usability studies.

No I haven't I claimed there was a percentage that like it.

Now back up your claim with some fact.

Man I apologize, probably because of my wording my reply went way over
your head. The OP wanted to know why some sites were fixed width rather
than fluid. I am agreeing with you that fluid is better. I am agreeing
with you that that the majority of the people, when in a usability study
like fluid better. But there is a percentage that thinks fixed is
better.

Look, "someone" it telling their web development teams to design fixed
sites right? (I mean since there are fixed sites, someone is telling
some developers to make it like that.) It makes no difference if it is a
bad design idea. The fact is "someone" is making the decision to go
with a fixed design.

Now who ever this "someone" is, must like the fixed look because they
want it for their site and they want their site to perform well. They
may not realize that as far as usability is concerned their site sucks.
But that does not come in to play in their mind. They like the look, it
works on their computer, and all their friends computers, that's all
that matters to them. So they tell their designers they want it like
that.

No where do I say that fixed is better. I agree it is not. But that
still does not dispute the fact that, as dumb as they may be, someone
out there obviously likes it that way. Because they are telling their
design teams they want it that way.

Who ever is making that decision likes fixed width sites. If they
didn't, then fixed sites would not exist. They are not better, but a
shitload of decision makers think they are the way to go. EVEN if hat
is a bad decision.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

It has nothing to do with if I know how to do anything. It is a fact
that someone (a lot of someones) in decision making positions are
telling their design teams to design the site like this. Period. It
has absolutely nothing to do with if they are right or wrong (and I
agree they are wrong) the FACT is that there are a ton of decision
makers that like it that way.

Stop
projecting your own failings as an author on the whole field of web
authoring by saying that fixed is too complex.

You are so bent on trying to argue that you do not realize I am
completely agreeing with you. Flexible is the way to go. Absolutely I
agree. And EVERY site out there that is not flexible runs the risk of
losing customers. Absolutely!

But they still exist. As wrong as they are they exist, and they are the
overwhelming majority of the sties out there. That is what the entire
thread is about, the fact that they exist! If they did not exist, then
the OP would not have said "Why do they exist" I was answering the OP
and telling them why they exist. they exist because someone some
decision maker wants it that way. I DID NOT say it was a better way.

They may do it because they don't know any better. But they STILL do
it.

It sure isn't too complex
for the rest of us.

Nor is it complicated for me. But people still do it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Some people say preferable, that doesn't mean better is worthier.

No it doesn't.

 

[rf]

Look, "someone" it telling their web development teams to design fixed
sites right? (I mean since there are fixed sites, someone is telling
some developers to make it like that.) It makes no difference if it is a
bad design idea. The fact is "someone" is making the decision to go
with a fixed design.

Sheep.

The standard customer is a sheep. They look at the web and see all the fixed
width designs so they think that all web sites *must* be fixed width.

The same goes with frames. The sheep sees that frames are being used and
they think they like it. They have no idea how bad these things are, they
just see something and think "I'll make my web developer make my site like
this".

Or is it the lemming syndrome? Follow all the other lemmings over the cliff
into a sea of badly designed sites.

<aside>
I heard about a painter once. A woman had contracted him to paint her house
*this* colour, having given him a peice of wood painted a certain colour.

He got the colour wrong. He was made to mix some more paint and do it again.

And again the colour was not the same as the peice of wood.

The final time he painted the house he also painted the piece of wood.
Perfect match and a satisfied customer.
</aside>

 

[Neal]

Man I apologize, probably because of my wording my reply went way over
your head.

Even here you are condescending.

The OP wanted to know why some sites were fixed width rather
than fluid. I am agreeing with you that fluid is better. I am agreeing
with you that that the majority of the people, when in a usability study
like fluid better. But there is a percentage that thinks fixed is
better.

And that percentage is clearly misguided. Your post suggests that.

Whether the man with the money wants it or not, it's a bad decision. The
man doing the job has the responsibility to tell the man with the money to
not waste his money. Otherwise, the man with the job will soon be the man
without a job, and without the other man's money.

How much simpler can it be put? Just because some people like that look
doea not mean it's a good look.

So when Nick posted:

And you responded:

Man, analogy city in this thread. What does that have to do with the
fact that some people like that look?

and when Karl posted

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

And you replied

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

.... can you see why these analogies hold? This whole argument is
predicated on your belief that these analogies do not hold. Now you're
backpedaling and saying they do. If you're trolling, you're doing so damn
near a good job at it. If you're serious, note your inconsistencies and
try to learn from them.

 

[Neal]

Travis:

You are so bent on trying to argue that you do not realize I am
completely agreeing with you.

You are the one bent on disagreeing.

 

[Karl Core]

Unless it's a good Stilton or Gorgonzola.

<homer>mmmmmmmm Stilton</homer>

 

[Oli Filth]

Neal wrote:

... can you see why these analogies hold? This whole argument is
predicated on your belief that these analogies do not hold. Now you're
backpedaling and saying they do. If you're trolling, you're doing so
damn near a good job at it. If you're serious, note your inconsistencies
and try to learn from them.

I've been following this thread, and it seems that Travis has not only being
been *consistent* in his views, but has actually been *agreeing* with everything
you've said in principle. His saying that other people might like fixed-width is
*not* the same as him saying that *he* thinks it's better. In fact, he's saying
quite the opposite.

All you've been doing is saying that he's disagreeing with you, when in fact
he's been in agreement with you on this the whole time. If anyone's coming
across as a troll, it's you (no offence intended), because you don't seem to be
reading anything he's saying.

 

[Toby Inkster]

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

If the user doesn't resize their screen then a resizable design *is* fixed
width for them.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

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

Hmm. Imagine I'm Joe User. I bring up a page in my browser. I have no
reason to resize my browser window: I may not even know how.

How do I tell if the "look" I'm looking at is based on fixed-size or
fluid layout? What _is_ "that look"?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Sheep.

The standard customer is a sheep. They look at the web and see all the fixed
width designs so they think that all web sites *must* be fixed width.

Your absolutely right, they are sheep

The same goes with frames. The sheep sees that frames are being used and
they think they like it. They have no idea how bad these things are, they
just see something and think "I'll make my web developer make my site like
this".

Again your are absolutely right.

Or is it the lemming syndrome? Follow all the other lemmings over the cliff
into a sea of badly designed sites.

Na, that's a myth about the lemmings. I read somewhere it was staged
for the Disney film. But your point is correct

<aside>
I heard about a painter once. A woman had contracted him to paint her house
*this* colour, having given him a peice of wood painted a certain colour.

He got the colour wrong. He was made to mix some more paint and do it again.

And again the colour was not the same as the peice of wood.

The final time he painted the house he also painted the piece of wood.
Perfect match and a satisfied customer.
</aside>

People are dumb. But the fact that you are correct proves my point of
these people (dumb as they may be) are alive and well and surfing the
web. And WORSE yet, they are the one making the decisions for
corporations and their web sites.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Even here you are condescending.


And that percentage is clearly misguided. Your post suggests that.

No it didn't you just wanted to read that into my post.

Whether the man with the money wants it or not, it's a bad decision.

And you get no argument from me. You are correct.

man doing the job has the responsibility to tell the man with the money to
not waste his money.

They have the responsibility to do that, but they OBVIOUSLY are not
telling the man with the money to do that are they?

Otherwise, the man with the job will soon be the man
without a job, and without the other man's money.

Well I disagree that they will be out of a job, because of the "rf sheep
theory". People are followers even if that means they are headed for a
cliff.

How much simpler can it be put? Just because some people like that look
doea not mean it's a good look.

And again you will not find me arguing that point because you are right.

So when Nick posted:


And you responded:

This is true guy. The fact IS some people like that look.

and when Karl posted

And you replied


... can you see why these analogies hold?

No the analogies are dumb.

This whole argument is
predicated on your belief that these analogies do not hold.

They don't hold. They are meaningless.

Now you're
backpedaling and saying they do.

No I still think they are dumb and meaningless. (now read carefully) "I
agree with you" BUT that does not change the fact that they build web
sites this way, and that some people like them.

If you're trolling, you're doing so damn
near a good job at it.

Then this is a first in trolling because I an agreeing with you. Call
me the agreeing troll if you like. You are in denial that these people
obviously exist. DUMB as they may be, they exist. THAT is what I am
pointing out here. I completely agree with the fact they are dumb, they
are sheep, and they are doing it wrong. But they are still out there.
THAT is why people make sites for them.

But the analogies were stupid.

If you're serious, note your inconsistencies and
try to learn from them.

Finding the analogies dumb doesn't disagree with my view point (which by
the way is EXACTLY like yours) It just says I think the analogies use
were stupid.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You are the one bent on disagreeing.

Please show me one single line where I disagree with you.

 

[Travis Newbury]

If the user doesn't resize their screen then a resizable design *is* fixed
width for them.

I agree. It seems like a few here are denial that (whie wrong) these
people actually exist out there.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hmm. Imagine I'm Joe User. I bring up a page in my browser. I have no
reason to resize my browser window: I may not even know how.

Yep your right.

How do I tell if the "look" I'm looking at is based on fixed-size or
fluid layout? What _is_ "that look"?

You can't. But that is irrelevant. Because as rf states,people are
sheep

 

[rf]

Travis Newbury wrote:

[sheep]

People are dumb. But the fact that you are correct proves my point of
these people (dumb as they may be) are alive and well and surfing the
web. And WORSE yet, they are the one making the decisions for
corporations and their web sites.

The really sad thing is... they are.

 

[Neal]

Oli Filth:

Neal wrote:


I've been following this thread, and it seems that Travis has not only
being been *consistent* in his views, but has actually been *agreeing*
with everything you've said in principle. His saying that other people
might like fixed-width is *not* the same as him saying that *he* thinks
it's better. In fact, he's saying quite the opposite.

All you've been doing is saying that he's disagreeing with you, when in
fact he's been in agreement with you on this the whole time. If anyone's
coming across as a troll, it's you (no offence intended), because you
don't seem to be reading anything he's saying.

Well, I'll accept that I may be misreading, I'm hardly perfect.

But he's been saying that 1) the analogies between fixed width and other
dumb popular things are not good analogies; while I think they're over the
top, they're not really poor analogies in that just because something is
trendy does not make it good... 2) people here are in denial that some
people think they prefer this look; there's no evidence I can find to
support that.

Of course some people think it's a good look, otherwise it wouldn't have
been developed. It does allow the designer to apply the same rules to the
web that they do to paper. What people here are consistently arguing is
that regardless of the desire for that style of design, it's not only
inherently a less usable method of designing a site but also a red flag to
the informed that this designer does not get it.

If that makes me a troll, so be it.

 

[Neal]

Travis:

People are dumb. But the fact that you are correct proves my point of
these people (dumb as they may be) are alive and well and surfing the
web. And WORSE yet, they are the one making the decisions for
corporations and their web sites.

Guess what? No one's arguing that point either.

/that was never 5 minutes...

 

[Neal]

Travis:

Please show me one single line where I disagree with you.

Primarily the assertion that no one's recognizing that these boneheads
exist. That seems to be the entire thrust of your replies. No one has been
in denial of this to my eye.

/you're not allowed to argue unless you pay

 

[Travis Newbury]

==========
Primarily the assertion that no one's recognizing that these boneheads
exist. That seems to be the entire thrust of your replies. No one has
been
in denial of this to my eye.
==========

Again I agree. It seems we were both saying the same thing
differently, neither of us listenting to the other.
Group hug everyone!