Absolute Vs. Relative width sites

IMO it depends on the amount of content. I tend to favour fixed, centered sites designed for 800*600 as I have found that even with larger screens/resolutions people (the ones I know anyway) still have their browser size set to 800*600 so they aren't faced with loads of blank space! The trouble with so many of the flexible designs is that you end up with long lines of text that are very hard to read.

I'm not at all a fan of absolute width. I like a page to flow nicely.

But I suppose one advantage of using absolute width would be control over how it displays at any given res.

That said.......I design for 800X and 1024X...if we get to the point where res settings above 1024 get to a higher percentage, I'll either need to start using absolute width or give this up completely...I simply can't see well enough to work on anything above 1024.

Quote: Originally posted by The Webmistress
The trouble with so many of the flexible designs is that you end up with long lines of text that are very hard to read.

Hmm yeah, and what about those people who like to use really small and tiny fonts as well? It just compunds the problem lol

I think if you're going to go relative, ideally, you should go relative with everything - font sizes, boxes, even images.

That's difficult to do, so I usually end up a hybrid, which works pretty well over most agents and settings.

Also important is to know if you will have users visiting with certain agents or settings, and to cater for them too, even if they're a very small group.

Even though it would be favourable to have your site work in literally every possible context, I don't think it's important to design for people who wouldn't visit even in mildly special circumstances.

My 1.9999 < cents < 2.0001

Controlling line length is another key factor. One of the advantages of fixed width is that it's easy to control line length at high resolutions. There is an ideal ratio for font size to line length - we've talked about this here before.

Therefore, if you don't have a lot of page elements to break up the line lenght, it may be better to use a fixed width design. If there's a lot going on - like a 3-4 column layout, then you wouldn't have to worry about it and would be able to allow for more space with a flexible design. When the CSS max-width property is fully supported we'll have more options.

OK, So the relative widths vs. absolute width "debate" is more or less like the frames vs. table vs. CSS Positioning "debate" ?

There really is no real answer, just depends on the content and style of the site?

Pretty muich. Other people might disagree with me there. I think that ideally a site should be flexible up to a certain maximum width at which point it would stop. That maximum width would vary depending on the site design. Of course this is an ideal case since the max-width property isn't supported by IE yet.

I totally agree with Megan.

I feel that it's a personal preference. I have created sites both ways. I prefer absolute because I can control the layout much better and I really dislike the text stretching out too far. I am one of those people that likes to have the full screen open - not to minimize it. So fonts that are strecthed too far are very difficult for me to read.

That's about it from here!

there is alot more to absolute vs fixed width than simply what the content "looks" like.. tables control everything, (and CSS can control this much better than HTML - AND contrary to popular belief it is MUCH more widely supported than everyone thinks - I've tested CSS vertical + horizontal centering on Opera, Mozilla, NN, and IE and they all work like a dream).. what about top and bottom alignment? What if your using dynamic content that always changes? What if your using plugin features such as flash .swf's?

Why would you have to have endless lines of text on absolute width?
Just takes good planning.. use table cells that are fixed and "shocks" in between them that stretch while the entire table is 100%. Min size 800 width - easy. If you want to take it a step farther have asp or php build the page for you depending on the screen size, and you can have a variance of % (percentage) that it can grow or shrink to - so you know it always looks good.

hmm, good point there forwardtrends, however, if you use ASP or PHP to build your site for you depending on the screen size like what you suggested, isn't that the same as having relative widths anyways?

no.. you can build your table widths to a maximum and minimum width depending on available space.. also you can use if statements relative to the screen width to add even more content (columns) if the page is that huge.

Lets all remember that "relative" widths doesn't mean use position: relative in css since many browsers have problems with it and the boxes of the layers. If you use a simple div and do not define a position then you can use floats to position and have greater browser compatability. This is sort of technical but I think its an important distinction.
-dk