Max size for webcontent in IE on XP

[Jonathan N. Little]

No, it isn't. If you examine the code or at least experiment some with
your browser window and text size settings, you'd see it is not fixed
width at all.

Stand [sit] corrected.

 

[Bergamot]

The columns widths are set in % (of window) with a
total max-width in ems,

If this is meant to imply that the cols grow at merely resizing
the browser window,[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you (I mean that collectively, not you personally) don't get the
max-width concept. :-\ To me, it is a beautiful and elegant solution.

Another more likely example of a fluid design in this non 'font
variable' sense is a thumbnail gallery with a great many pictures
that are floated.

In your example, there is none of this "taking advantage" in this
pure sense I am describing.

Um, the site I pointed to is primarily text, so it does exactly the
right thing by limiting width in ems. I don't understand the confusion
(apathy?) about this.

What do you suggest that site should do differently to fit into whatever
definition of "fluid" you think applies? I'd really like to know.

you need to take a deeper look at the idea if it is to connect
and mean things to the average punter.

Actually, the comments I've heard so far make me think other people have
a narrow view of what a fluid design should be. Although the problem may
really be they don't *know* what it should be, thus they don't recognize
it when they see it.

 

[David Segall]

What Gutenberg was doing was printing on *paper*. Paper has absolute
dimensions,

Maybe, but those that produce print have learned that what looks good
on a billboard usually fails to convey the message if used on a
postage stamp. They know that even changing the orientation of a fixed
size page from portrait to landscape requires a new print layout.

a webpage does not! It is a different media. The same
transition when television was invented, the early shows tried to do tv
like radio, but it didn't really work. The "shows" had to change. Same
here with print media to web

Agreed. People insist on arguing that a web site can be made to look
good regardless of the Window size using only HTML and CSS. I do not
believe this is possible. HTML and CSS are relics of the print media
and until designers make proper use of the computer's intelligence we
will continue to see web pages that are _designed_ for a fixed window
size even if they shrink or expand to fill the available space.

 

[dorayme]

Perhaps you (I mean that collectively, not you personally) don't get the
max-width concept. :-\ To me, it is a beautiful and elegant solution.

What is there to get? An elegant and beautiful solution to what
is the question.

It is very handy that text enlargement is allowed to grow to take
advantage of the screen's width. This in itself has nothing
whatsoever to do with the css of max-width. But it can be handy
if one wants to make some eye pleasing box to contain the text.
and have that box grow in an ordered manner.

But here you are just concentrating on the notion of text size.
The idea of fluid design for some also carries the notion of a
design that can take advantage of different screen sizes for more
than just this text sizing variation and it is this that has
escaped you in your response to David.

Um, the site I pointed to is primarily text,

The subject of things is not some site that you or I happen to
choose to illustrate something or other.

Actually, the comments I've heard so far make me think other people have
a narrow view of what a fluid design should be. Although the problem may
really be they don't *know* what it should be, thus they don't recognize
it when they see it.

Do you understand the desire to design to generally satisfy as
many requirements as possible, not only text variation stuff but
graphical content? This is a complicated desire and you pointing
to something that grows with text size does not cut the mustard
in explicating a useful notion of fluid design. It is part of it.
So I would say, B that it is you that is here being a little
narrow and over focused.

 

[Bergamot]

Do you understand the desire to design to generally satisfy as
many requirements as possible, not only text variation stuff but
graphical content?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that each site's design should be
geared towards its specific content. A site that is primarily text has
different needs than a photo gallery. Why would the same design ideas
apply to both?

This is a complicated desire and you pointing
to something that grows with text size does not cut the mustard
in explicating a useful notion of fluid design. It is part of it.

Is a single site supposed to be all encompassing? That's unrealistic. I
pointed to one example. A different site with a different type of
content would show different methods for that type of content. Do I have
to go find a photo gallery for you? I really don't have the time.

So I would say, B

Please don't call me "B".

 

[John Hosking]

I crtainly agree that this site exhibits a flexibility and elegance of
appearance that most sites do not, be they strictly fixed-width or
purely fluid. I like the way the site handles up-sizing of text and
down-sizing of browser. I know from experience that achieving that
status quo took a combination of skill and experience which I, for one,
still lack. Kudos. Praise. Hosanna. Etc.

Perhaps you (I mean that collectively, not you personally) don't get the
max-width concept. :-\ To me, it is a beautiful and elegant solution.

Yes, beautiful and elegant. But not complete. I want more.

I agree (that is, I /believe/ I agree; I'm not always conversant in
Martian) with dorayme. Namely, I don't care for the fact that, upon
entry to the site at my defaults (the Web equivalent of what in
chemistry class we called "at STP"), there is a lot of wasted real
estate to the left and right of the content. I can't reclaim that space
except by enlarging the font size (which the site indeed deals with
marvelously) or narrowing the browser (which the site does graciously
permit). But for me, the ideal design adapts itself to my viewport (and
font-size and resolution, etc.), and this site, though marvelous in many
ways, does not do that. I get wasted space left and right, and a
vertical scrollbar so I can see the hidden content -- it's just the two
lines of the footer -- below.

Um, the site I pointed to is primarily text, so it does exactly the
right thing by limiting width in ems. I don't understand the confusion
(apathy?) about this.

What do you suggest that site should do differently to fit into whatever
definition of "fluid" you think applies? I'd really like to know.

I can provide a suggestion of "what," at least in general, although the
"how" is elusive, as is the "what" for this specific site.

What I envision is a design allowing or making use of "chunkification,"
whereby chunks of content can float (in layman's terms, I don't mean it
has to have CSS float: set) to adapt to the available space. I then get
to see the maximum percentage of the content no matter how I size my
browser. It does not satisfy me to _have_ to narrow my browser as you
seem to want me to do with the Bright Finance site. It's flexible if it
adapts to _me_, not so flexible if I have to adapt to it.

Now, _how_ one obtains this kind of "chunkification" is part of the
Mystery of Life, for which I still seek enlightenment. Certainly some
sites, or rather, pages lend themselves to this idea better than others.
The Home page of Bright Finance looks like it'd do it pretty easily,
since it already consists of blocks. The other pages, like
http://www.brightfinance.co.uk/careers/vacancies/ , might not work so well.

Actually, the comments I've heard so far make me think other people have
a narrow view of what a fluid design should be. Although the problem may
really be they don't *know* what it should be, thus they don't recognize
it when they see it.

I'm thinking about this.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Maybe, but those that produce print have learned that what looks good
on a billboard usually fails to convey the message if used on a
postage stamp. They know that even changing the orientation of a fixed
size page from portrait to landscape requires a new print layout.

You appear to be missing the point, whether or not it's a billboard or a
postage stamp the printing process involves knowing in advance the
dimensions and aspect of the "canvas"! That is *not* the case with a
webpage, unless you forces everybody to use MS WebTV!

Agreed. People insist on arguing that a web site can be made to look
good regardless of the Window size using only HTML and CSS. I do not
believe this is possible.

Oh ye of little faith.

HTML and CSS are relics of the print media

?? P { pause: 30ms 40ms; }

and until designers make proper use of the computer's intelligence we
will continue to see web pages that are _designed_ for a fixed window
size even if they shrink or expand to fill the available space.

Hmmm, well computers are actually very very dumb, but besides the point.
How do you mean? We had ways via JavaScript.Unfortunately the
combination of some browsers on bad security, and some unscrupulous
designers that did "use of the computer's intelligence" via JavaScript
with said bad browsers and gullible humans (with lack of it) and did
some nasty things! So JavaScript has a black eye now! I would be for
reinforcing the JavaScript sandbox, maybe limiting some of its
functionality to make the holy trinity available for we designers again.

HTML - structure and content
CSS - presentation
JavaScript - behavior and interaction

 

[Bergamot]

Yes, beautiful and elegant. But not complete. I want more.

It wasn't intended as a be-all example. I'm not sure why everyone seems
to think it was. If I come across an e-commerce or other site that
showcases good use of fluid design for their type of content, I will
post a link. I ask that y'all do the same.

there is a lot of wasted real
estate to the left and right of the content.

If the content stretched the width of a large browser window (which is
what some people seem to think all fluid design must do), the lines of
text would be too long for comfortable reading, except at very large
text sizes. Then it would be as bad as the other sites Mr Segall
complained about.

What I envision is a design allowing or making use of "chunkification,"
whereby chunks of content can float (in layman's terms, I don't mean it
has to have CSS float: set) to adapt to the available space.

In other words, newspaper-type columns. That isn't currently possible
without some JavaScript hackery and the one example I've seen using such
a method was quite disappointing, plus a pain to navigate. The CSS3
properties that address this are barely supported (certainly not by IE),
so are not a viable solution. I think the whole concept is not well
thought out, anyway, but that is a different discussion for a different day.

So considering the current technology, what you envision is not really
doable. Now consider what is doable within the current technology and
we'll go from there.

It does not satisfy me to _have_ to narrow my browser as you
seem to want me to do with the Bright Finance site.

I never suggested that the user had to do such a thing. I only suggested
doing it so you could see how the design adapted to variations in the
user's settings, which you admit it does very nicely.

It's flexible if it
adapts to _me_, not so flexible if I have to adapt to it.

Why do you think you have to adapt to that site? If you find it nicely
readable in your default settings, why would you feel compelled to
change anything in your browser?

 

[Bergamot]

How do you mean?

I'm a bit confused by this as well. An example would be helpful.

 

[dorayme]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that each site's design should be
geared towards its specific content. A site that is primarily text has
different needs than a photo gallery. Why would the same design ideas
apply to both?


Is a single site supposed to be all encompassing? That's unrealistic. I
pointed to one example. A different site with a different type of
content would show different methods for that type of content. Do I have
to go find a photo gallery for you? I really don't have the time.

You seem simply fixated on your example. It completely perplexes
me why you think it is THE main topic. I have no criticism here
of your example. It may well be a fine example of text responding
to being upped and downed and doing well under varying browser
window sizes. I thought we we were talking about bigger things.

I talk about using screen size to advantage for the presentation
of material and you cannot be distracted from one aspect of this.

Perhaps, since you are so focused on text, I can make my point
about an idea of fluid design that involves just text and nothing
but text. One conception of fluid design that I have, perhaps I
cannot speak for others, is a page in which there is a lot of
material and it is readable not only at very narrow window widths
but usefully and pleasantly able to take advantage of the widest
screens and browser sizes quite independently of font-size. And
the simplest model for this is floated boxes in which there is
just text, the bigger the screen the less one needs to scroll.

The truth of the matter is that many website pages do not have
enough fuel in them for the powerful engine of fluid design to be
opened to full throttle. I will say it again, there is more to
fluid design than making a website comfortable for those who want
to change text size.