Kris said:
mtv.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com etc etc... need I go on?
Why are they "good" examples? Do you have argumentation why their
content or audience dictates a fixed layout? Or is it the 'big sites do
it'-bandwagon?
Sometimes design
and readability dictates a "fixed" size. Most commercial sites employ
this.
Well, why?[/QUOTE]
Ask them, I didn't design any of those sites
What is that assumption based on?
I would assume the design firms behind the large commercial sites have done
thier research. Putting that asside, it's to do with design, rather than
content.
You base your statement on visual differences between examples. But what
is the underlying principle?
There is none, other than "sell an image" or "sell a product".
So, fixed design is 'more pretty'?
Not always, but usually. A great deal of the media we consume these days is
"little substance, lots of style". This isn't a particuarly good thing, but
it's the commercial world we live in.
So, fixed design establishes image?
No, it is one way of pressenting an image. This is always what gets me. This
isn't black and white. Example; the layout of a zine like Glamour is very
distinctive. A lot of style over content. Compare this to other printed
media, such as the Times newspaper. It would be very easy to translate
something like the Times into a flexible scalable layout on screen. To
reproduce the content of something like Glamour online would be almost
impossible with "flexible layout".
What is the argumentation for that bold statement?
The MTV web site does not sell a product, other than it's own image (which
drives people to their channel, which sells advert space etc etc). In the
case of the MTV site, the graphical elements (bitmaps) are critical. Ask any
typographer about layout
It is not easy, but it is certainly not impossible. It is not easy
because it is different from the slicing-game.
It is impossible. Say you have graphical elements that contain type; such as
company brand, brand placement, album artwork etc etc. From and design and
typographical point of view everything has to be placed specifically. Now,
if suddenly all the page text is twice the size, what effect does this have
on the unscaled components of the page?
Me too. My browser window is not anything remotely resembling that size.
As I said, screen resolution and browser window size are unrelated.
Ah, but you see, you are wrong
If you are reading a newspaper and your
view is obscured by another bit of paper on your desk, you move it, right?
So if your browser window is too small, you make it bigger. People aren't
stupid... the vast majority of commercial sites are designed for around 750
x 450 because designs know that the target audience will be able to fit this
on screen; and that even if they have their default browser window popup at
300x300 they are competent enough to resize the thing
Something that definately matters. You however see somehow a
justification in that for using a fixed width design. You have not
convinced me yet.
True. But how does that relate to screen resolution, window size or a
fixed design?
Design, image, brand, typography...
It requires practice and common sense, not ImageReady on autopilot. It
is really achievable.
Design does take some degree of compitence for sure... any fool can stick
something together in PhotoShop, slice and dice and shove it online. That's
not good enough for commercial clients or their audience. And thanks to the
poor design of all modern browers, we're stuck in a situation where the
"best" designs tend to be fixed (or even worse, Flash).
I am not saying that fixed design has no place. I am saying however that
a design as flexible as possible should always be the first choice and
that one needs very good reasons to differ from that. As long as Mr. OP
gives no specific reasons that lead me to conclude he needs a fixed
design, I will advice him to design a flexible layout.
And I offered a counter argument