My site has alwys in the past been fixed. The redesign that was heavily dicussed here is expandable.
The reasn I felt it needed the cahnge is that when I got my new monitor, I realised how poor the site looked at larger res. I always used to see it at a max of 800 x 600. But like the above, it really does depend on the site.
Jack Michaelson posted this at 11:13 — 13th October 2002.
Most sites don't look good stretched. My current res is 1280, but I kick it up to 1600 at times. I can still read 10/12px fonts, but not when they stretch accross my screen. I can't follow the line of text that far. So, even at high resolutions, I always size my browser to about 1024.
Mark Hensler
If there is no answer on Google, then there is no question.
The Webmistress posted this at 07:02 — 9th October 2002.
I suppose a lot of it is down to personal tastes. I have a 19" screen running at 1152*864 and at full screen I really think it looks daft a lot of the time when sites stretch to fit making long lines of text, especially if the were designed to wrap around pictures or sit in specific places and then the navigation or sides are longer than the middles!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
Expandable layouts are the only way to really ensure accessibility.
People on huge monitors with huge resolutions can't read small text, while people on small monitors in small resolutions may be presented with something too large to easily read.
The solution? Use CSS's relative units for everything, save a few exceptions (such as border-width for example.
Like everyone else says,
it really depends on the function/type of site.
My latest is expandable/CSS positioned,
and i do like stretchy sites that work.
Fixed is great for somethings, but I run at 1024x768 which
isn't that big these days, and often half my screen is empty
with little fixed width sites.
dragonsjaw
"Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight- 'Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." - Bruce Cockburn
It depends, big time. For information heavy sites (like gymn.ca) I tend to use a flex-width layout. For sites that are more of a display or less content heavy (like the Belfry Cottage site I did recently) I tend to go with fixed. It always depends on the design I come up with as well - latey I've been doing more complex layouts that wouldn't work as well flexed.
It depends on the site, but for normal (non-forum) websites I would say fixed width.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
openmind posted this at 13:09 — 13th October 2002.
He has: 945 posts
Joined: Aug 2001
My site has alwys in the past been fixed. The redesign that was heavily dicussed here
is expandable.
The reasn I felt it needed the cahnge is that when I got my new monitor, I realised how poor the site looked at larger res. I always used to see it at a max of 800 x 600. But like the above, it really does depend on the site.
Jack Michaelson posted this at 11:13 — 13th October 2002.
He has: 1,733 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
Depends on the situation but I'd say fixed.
nuk3 posted this at 00:58 — 13th October 2002.
They have: 238 posts
Joined: May 2002
But it would still look bad on earlier broswer versions..
Megan posted this at 13:10 — 9th October 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
That's why the max-width property is a wonderful thing
I'm really going to have to start using that (and wouldn't it be nice if IE supported it ?!?)
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Mark Hensler posted this at 07:16 — 9th October 2002.
He has: 4,048 posts
Joined: Aug 2000
Most sites don't look good stretched. My current res is 1280, but I kick it up to 1600 at times. I can still read 10/12px fonts, but not when they stretch accross my screen. I can't follow the line of text that far. So, even at high resolutions, I always size my browser to about 1024.
Mark Hensler
If there is no answer on Google, then there is no question.
The Webmistress posted this at 07:02 — 9th October 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I suppose a lot of it is down to personal tastes. I have a 19" screen running at 1152*864 and at full screen I really think it looks daft a lot of the time when sites stretch to fit making long lines of text, especially if the were designed to wrap around pictures or sit in specific places and then the navigation or sides are longer than the middles!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
jkd posted this at 02:18 — 9th October 2002.
They have: 21 posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Expandable layouts are the only way to really ensure accessibility.
People on huge monitors with huge resolutions can't read small text, while people on small monitors in small resolutions may be presented with something too large to easily read.
The solution? Use CSS's relative units for everything, save a few exceptions (such as border-width for example.
Supermod @ CodingForums.com
disaster-master posted this at 22:50 — 8th October 2002.
She has: 2,154 posts
Joined: May 2001
Expandable if possible.
dragonsjaw posted this at 22:19 — 8th October 2002.
She has: 120 posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Like everyone else says,
it really depends on the function/type of site.
My latest is expandable/CSS positioned,
and i do like stretchy sites that work.
Fixed is great for somethings, but I run at 1024x768 which
isn't that big these days, and often half my screen is empty
with little fixed width sites.
dragonsjaw
"Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight- 'Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." - Bruce Cockburn
Megan posted this at 13:26 — 8th October 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
It depends, big time. For information heavy sites (like gymn.ca) I tend to use a flex-width layout. For sites that are more of a display or less content heavy (like the Belfry Cottage site I did recently) I tend to go with fixed. It always depends on the design I come up with as well - latey I've been doing more complex layouts that wouldn't work as well flexed.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Busy posted this at 08:12 — 8th October 2002.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Depends on the content but I'd go expandable
zollet posted this at 08:05 — 8th October 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
It depends on the site, but for normal (non-forum) websites I would say fixed width.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.