Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

[XyZed]

I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
here every day and learnt most of what I know.

Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
learning more techniques.

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
things changed?

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
just being pigheaded or ignorant.

The design of a website is unique to that website. For some website
the best thing is a fluid design, plain text and some CSS formatting.
For others it might be fixed width and lots of Flash, for others it
might be a combination. There are no "set in stone" rules for
websites.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

These are still good principles in general.

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

You could try using CSS max-width:

BODY { max-width: 45em; }

Adjust so that the max-width is not at your ideal width, but at the widest
possible "comfortable" width.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 17 days, 44 min.]

Gnocchi all'Amatriciana al Forno
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/15/gnocchi-allamatriciana/

 

[Harlan Messinger]

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

If the user doesn't like it that way, why does he have his browser
maximized to fill the entire screen?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
here every day and learnt most of what I know.

Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
learning more techniques.

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

Still a good principle, if done correctly can make maintenance a snap.

My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
things changed?

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

A liquid site does make it easier to read in various viewports without
have to scroll left to right (okay for books, a bad thing for computers
and PDA's) But I would say you are making a fundamental mistake

Browser Viewport != Display Size.

Don't assume that if one had a widescreen display that they have their
Browser maximize. I would hypothesize that the larger the display size
the less likely the browser is maximized. I rarely have mine maximized,
I use the extra space for other apps...multitasking. It is like the
difference of have a full 6-foot desk or just one of those school
chair-with-attached-paddle thingies.

 

[richard]

I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
here every day and learnt most of what I know.

Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
learning more techniques.

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
things changed?

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

So set your page widths to suit your site.
You could set your width to 1000 pixels.
Make up a division as a container for the entire page and put a border
around it. Then center the page.

I now have a widescreen monitor and I am designing my pages so they'll
fit on either without any problems.

You make your site the way you want to present it.

 

[richard]

Still a good principle, if done correctly can make maintenance a snap.

A liquid site does make it easier to read in various viewports without
have to scroll left to right (okay for books, a bad thing for computers
and PDA's) But I would say you are making a fundamental mistake

Browser Viewport != Display Size.

Don't assume that if one had a widescreen display that they have their
Browser maximize. I would hypothesize that the larger the display size
the less likely the browser is maximized. I rarely have mine maximized,
I use the extra space for other apps...multitasking. It is like the
difference of have a full 6-foot desk or just one of those school
chair-with-attached-paddle thingies.

So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
possible?
Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?
Bullshit.
Not to mention each and every browser?
Bullshit.
Excuse me sir, if the viewer has browser set to say 400x320 and my
page is 3 times that, that's his problem, not mine.
That's why browsers are flexible.
Or should be.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Make up a division as a container for the entire page and put a border
around it. Then center the page.

Automatic centring looks particularly bad when displayed on a twin-
screen display.

 

[richard]

Automatic centring looks particularly bad when displayed on a twin-
screen display.

Lucky you. So you get half on the left, half on the right?
Wonder how that'd work with 4 screens?

I was in a warehouse one day making a delivery and saw they had dual
monitors set up. Hugest damn monitors they make probably. How do they
work for stuff like secondlife or warcraft?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
possible?

Not as hard as you make is seem, but with your mindset illustrated by
your posts enlightenment would be wasted.

Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?
Bullshit.

Not my preference, but more and more folks are sold on Job's gadget.

Not to mention each and every browser?
Bullshit.

Not everyone has IE.

Excuse me sir, if the viewer has browser set to say 400x320 and my
page is 3 times that, that's his problem, not mine.
That's why browsers are flexible.
Or should be.

The point is that if your page can wrap the content, especially when
textual to accommodate the width then it is easier to read on displayed
devices. Electronic reading ergonomically prefers vertical scrolling as
opposed to horizontal. Form follows function. Newspapers are the size
they are because it is the maximum size of paper that an average person
can uncomfortably hold up and with outstretched arms turn a page. Making
it smaller cost more in fabrication, increasing the size makes it
uncomfortable to handle. Web media is has different physical constraints
and by the nature of how it is used, vertical scrolling is preferred
over horizontal.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2008-01-16, richard wrote:
....

So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
possible?

Browsers do that automatically. If your page doesn't adjust to fit
the browser window, it's because you have done something to
prevent it.

Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?

Even cell phones and PDAs.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
possible?
Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?
Bullshit.
Not to mention each and every browser?
Bullshit.
Excuse me sir, if the viewer has browser set to say 400x320 and my
page is 3 times that, that's his problem, not mine.

It's his problem if he gets fed up using your site so he moves on to a
competing site that works happily on his platform?

That's why browsers are flexible.
Or should be.

A cell phone should be able to morph into a 15" display?

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]

,

Automatic centring looks particularly bad when displayed on a twin-
screen display.

I have been meaning to get around to removing the right and left
mounting strips of my left and right LCD screens and looking for
that tube of clear resin glue I have somewhere...

 

[dorayme]

I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
here every day and learnt most of what I know.

Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
learning more techniques.

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
things changed?

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

Who gave you permission to leave? How dare you try to concentrate
on content? That will teach you. 8 years! Do you really suppose
that you can get away with truancy like this scot-free?

It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]
m>,

It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
just being pigheaded or ignorant.

O well, here goes: always use a title, always put a doctype,don't
make the font-size so small that only very few people can read
it, ...

The design of a website is unique to that website.

.... to the point where two websites differed by a mere full stop.

 

[Tim Streater]

<[email protected]
m>,

O well, here goes: always use a title, always put a doctype,don't
make the font-size so small that only very few people can read
it, ...

These are reasonable rules. It's when they say "never use tables or
frames or iframes" that it becomes unreasonable.

 

[dorayme]

These are reasonable rules. It's when they say "never use tables or
frames or iframes" that it becomes unreasonable.

Ah you mean to defend our Travis, Mr Motherhood, to the very end!
All reasonable rules but not unreasonable ones. <g>

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:36:25 GMT
dorayme scribed:

It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)

Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm claustrophobic
about girdles.)

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:36:25 GMT
dorayme scribed:

Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm claustrophobic
about girdles.)

So, what are you saying? That you are fat as well as everything
else?

 

[El Kabong]

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

<snip>

Great question that has generated a great discussion! I feel... well,
*enlightened.*

(and I'm not being facet.. faset.. uh, I'm not kidding!)

El