Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001
From: Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson on 26 Jan 2010 23:43
"Roy A." <royarneskar(a)gmail.com> writes:

> You can complain, if that make you feel better!

It did.

>> I'll echo: None
>
> You're welcome!

*smile* and moving on to something completely different.


Johann
From: dorayme on 27 Jan 2010 00:27
In article <m3fx5snoqg.fsf(a)myrkraverk.com>,
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann(a)myrkraverk.com> wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
....
> > Everything depends. If you
> > have nothing much but thumbnails, it is very often a good idea to
> > use the whole of anyone's screen to maximum extent.
> >
> > If it is text that needs to be read, better max width and not let it
> > simply go on and on in a line. And if someone says, leave it to the
> > user to narrow his window, I say no! Help the user instead by doing
> > what is appropriate to the different elements, letting some flex
> > wide, ensuring other bits do the very opposite and so on.
>
> I'll point to
>
> http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/em/
>
> and mention that when testing with various zoom percentages, I found
> it quite good.
>

I'd be more generous and say *very good*, the comparison is a
world swimming in generally very poor standard of website
construction.

> For an example of a story site with narrow margins, you can take a
> look at
>
> http://www.literotica.com/
>
> which may not be work safe.
>

Your point about the latter being?

--
dorayme
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 27 Jan 2010 04:47
On 2010-01-27, Roy A. wrote:
> On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> But to do fluid width design you
>> either need to be a genius or have simple content. Not that there aren't
>> geniuses or that there aren't sites with simple content.
>
> Fluid design is possible, but they will not be as attractive as fixed
> with designs.

Fluid designs are neither harder to do nor less attractive than
fixed-width.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: jeff on 27 Jan 2010 08:35
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
>> In article
>> <ee17b97e-9228-4edb-9e17-77d3f2901ce5(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.co
>> m>,
>> "Roy A." <royarneskar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Jan, 01:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a...(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
>>>> m>,
>>>> "Roy A." <royarnes...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Mason C wrote:
>>>>>>> What screen size should one design for?
>>>>> The consensus in this group is not to design (for any
>>>>> resolution). Meaning, you should not design, but let the
>>>>> content flow, and adapt to the browser window.
>>>> These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
>>>> are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
>>>> with a grain of salt.
>>> Yes, I agree. If I can say so, there is something those who is
>>> arguing for "flexible with" is not saying.
>>>
>>> At least I think you have to apply an max-with for the main
>>> content.
>> Indeed, that is often not a bad idea. Everything depends. If you
>> have nothing much but thumbnails, it is very often a good idea to
>> use the whole of anyone's screen to maximum extent.
>>
>> If it is text that needs to be read, better max width and not let it
>> simply go on and on in a line. And if someone says, leave it to the
>> user to narrow his window, I say no! Help the user instead by doing
>> what is appropriate to the different elements, letting some flex
>> wide, ensuring other bits do the very opposite and so on.
>
> I'll point to
>
> http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/em/


The difficulty in designing complex sites with em widths, or simply
fluid widths are substantial.

Let's look at what they actually do rather than what they proselytize:

http://www.maxdesign.com.au/sites/

The first three sites listed (I did not look further), are all fixed
width. And none of those are very complex.

Jeff
From: jeff on 27 Jan 2010 09:03
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-01-27, Roy A. wrote:
>> On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>> But to do fluid width design you
>>> either need to be a genius or have simple content. Not that there aren't
>>> geniuses or that there aren't sites with simple content.
>> Fluid design is possible, but they will not be as attractive as fixed
>> with designs.
>
> Fluid designs are neither harder to do nor less attractive than
> fixed-width.

Prove it. Post up 3 good looking 3 column fluid width sites that have
relatively complex content.

Even your own site has horizontal scrollbars at 800 px:

http://cfajohnson.com/cryptics/

I can think of only Wikipedia, which is pretty plain jane, although
attractive.

Fluid web design is damn hard once you get into any kind of
commercial work. Even the poor examples tend to fail below 800 wide if
they contain any images.

The creation of aesthetically pleasing sites is vastly under
appreciated! To do this in fluid width is damn hard.

I am not a designer, but I implement other's designs as part of my
business. I am also pretty good at html and CSS and I can tell you that
I can't do it! And to do that in a way that can be easily maintained...

Jeff


>
>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001