should my content be resizable ?

[Jeffrey Silverman]

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.

Okay, here's an analogy for you.

Some people like to eat pickled herring; that doesn't mean a rollercoaster
kumquat banjo!

 

[Karl Core]

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.

This isn't so much a response to Neal as it is to the whole thread in
general. I've just isolated the above quote so it provides some context to
what I am about to say.

First, we must understand one thing - "evidence" is very hard to come by in
the usability world - especially evidence that will hold up to scientific
scrutiny. This is because there's hardly any quantitative research being
done in human-computer interaction (at least as it relates to the Web).
Everything in the usability world is what I like to call "Informed
Conjecture".

My company does usability testing for large gov't agencies and Fortune 200
companies. We almost never test more than 12 people for any single task[1].
The reason is simple: by 3 people, we've uncovered what we think will be a
problem. By 6 people, we've pretty much uncovered all of the problems. By 8
people, we've solidified the biggest problems and by 10-12 people, we've
filtered out the upper and lower people in the curve. *Usually* persons
9-12 aren't going to tell us anything we don't already know. So for us to
test more than 12 people would be a major waste of our clients' money and
our time. Results are what matter to clients, not whether we've
contributed to the global wealth of knowledge - especially when each
situation really is unique. Website interfaces are so different that what
creates a problem on one site might not create a problem on another (because
other things might be so good on the second site that the "problem" is
minimized).

Now, let me give some of my "informed conjecture" on this topic:

Whether or not the site is fixed or liquid is not the [whole] issue. The
issue is "what benefits does a liquid design have over a fixed?"

I have not noticed any user preference for fixed vs. liquid layouts[2]. This
is for two reasons: a) as others have pointed out, they're all too stupid to
know the difference and b) because the majority of people are using 1024x768
or lower resolutions. So the whole "preference" thing flies out the window.
People don't know and moreover, they don't care.

But here's where the big difference comes in. The mantra at my company is -
If the user cannot find it, then it must not exist; if they cannot use it,
then it must be broken. A fluid design can make the difference between
whether a user finds the info or misses it completely. This is due in no
small part to the fact that content "below the fold" is often not noticed by
users. While most designers are at least smart enough not to cause
horizontal scroll, they've got no qualms about causing vertical scrolling.
To them, adhering to some misguided goal toward an "image-safe" size of 800
pixels is all they care about.

If anything, the issue of fixed vs. liquid layouts is one of scanability.
The reason why people miss the content below the fold is because they don't
actually read what is on the screen. They're scanning for keywords and
phrases which indicate whether or not the page their viewing has the content
they're after. If the content is below the fold, it may as well not
exist.[3]

What does this have to do with fixed vs. liquid? Designing a fluid site
means that you're increasing the chances that people on larger monitors
(60%+, depending on source) will be able to scan your content[4]. You're
presenting them with more content above the fold and therefore enabling them
to scan more text to find what they're looking for. This is especially
useful for the users on 1024x768 monitors who are likely to be browsing
full-size as well as people on 1280 wide monitors who are often browsing at
close-to full size[5]. That increased width (200 & 400 pixels,
respectively) can make a HUGE difference in whether or not people can
actually find the information they're after.

Choosing a liquid layout seems to be a no-brainer as far as I am concerned.
About 36% of the population is surfing the Web with 800x600 resolution.
You'd be a fool not to accomodate them. At the same time, you're a fool not
to accomodate your users on larger monitors as well, since they account for
the majority of your potential traffic. Remember, unless it is a pr0n
website, nobody's comin to the site for the pictures, they're coming for the
content, so give it to them!




1 - A "task" being a single interaction, such as registering for an online
newsletter or finding a bit of information on a specific topic
2 - Actually, one person did make a comment during the last test that "I
hate all that white space on the right. They should make it fit the screen"
3 - Unless you're smart and make sure it is clear that the page content
continues.
4 - Assuming, of course, that their browser window is full-size
5 - This claim is based solely on my observation in the lab, not
quantitative data

 

[Nik Coughin]

Okay, here's an analogy for you.

Some people like to eat pickled herring; that doesn't mean a
rollercoaster kumquat banjo!

Or as a great man once said:

"All elephants will be male appalling telegraphs. They are preaching up
like, in respect of prime, on the part of statistical administrators."

 

[Jeffrey Silverman]

Or as a great man once said:

"All elephants will be male appalling telegraphs. They are preaching up
like, in respect of prime, on the part of statistical administrators."

"Babelized":

All the elephants are maschii terrible of teletypes. Anticipate for
l'alto like, until the Verkollkommnung, in the name of
responsibles of the statistic.

(See http://www.tashian.com/multibabel/)

 

[Jon Davis]

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".

Wrong and wrong.

People use fixed-width designs because they design web sites in Illustrator,
then render to Photoshop, then cut the pieces out and viola, a web page.

People use frames because applications like FrontPage made it easy to do so.
Frames were actually pretty cool "Dilbertly speaking" when they were
introduced. They just proved to be a technical and usability nightmare when
put into practice.

Jon

 

[Jon Davis]

Even here you are condescending.

So when Nick posted:
And you responded:
And you replied

OH MY GOD ...

You people need a life and thicker skin!!!

Nitpicking on every little word!!

Jeeeez!!

 

[Jon Davis]

Excellent question.

The answer is not so simple. Each has its benefits and flaws.

BENEFITS OF EACH:

Fixed-width layouts allow graphic designers to create a web site that has a
single image or collage of images flowing across the top or bottom, without
whitespace in between, and without losing horizontal balance with the
content. It also allows graphic designers to design in Illustrator, render
to Photoshop, and break down the site into image widgets. This is the way a
LOT of "professional" web designers do their work.

"Liquid" layouts make it easier to fill a page with content according to the
window width, eliminating a lot of meaningless whitespace typically on the
right or both sides. It therefore increases the utility of increasing the
screen resolution of one's monitor.

FLAWS OF EACH

The obvious problem with fixed-width layouts is the dreaded whitespace
typically on the right or both sides of a web page. Many web pages are
designed for screens with a width of 640 pixels, so half the viewable window
is empty.

But despite all the noise I'm finding here in this thread about how horrible
fixed-width layouts are, the fact is that "liquid" layouts have a pretty
dramatic flaw as well: scroll location when resizing. Let's face it, on
larger monitor resolutions, people resize their browser windows all the
time. What happens when you click on a URL with a #named anchor and the web
page is chock full of content? You immediately lose your place, and must
scroll up and down until you can only guess where the #named anchor took
you. The only solution in such a situation is to go Back and then Forward
again to get it to reset, or hit the Refresh button (which in some browsers
often does not scroll down to the #named anchor as it did the first time).

This problem is one of my greatest pet peeves, and as an IE user I wish
Microsoft would correct the problem. I otherwise would prefer the "liquid"
layouts, because there's often nothing more ugly than 50% whitespace.

Jon