From: Roy A. on
On 28 Jan, 17:48, Bill Braun <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> Poster Matt wrote:
>
> > Approx. 15 million users stats, includes single and multi monitor info:
>
> >http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
>
> > Click on: 'Primary Display Resolution'.
>
> Largest fraction (21.2%) using 1280 x 1024, just about the
> size of a browser maximized on a 19" monitor.

Or an 17" inch LCD monitor.
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on
On 2010-01-27, jeff wrote:
> 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/

Thanks for pointing that out; now fixed.

> 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.

Fixed-width pages that are greater than 800px also fail when the
window is 800px or less.

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

I haven't found that to be true.


--
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)