Fluid versus fixed layout???
Moderator: General Moderators
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Fluid versus fixed layout???
Which do you prefer and please say why:
For years I have always prefered a fluid layout and is the driving force behind me not wanting to learn CSS to create fluid layouts, as it's doubly difficult.
However I just view a few web sites which used a fixed width design, which fit nicely in 800x600 and obviously in everything greater (1024, etc) and I must say, the way they were designed...looked pretty solid...
While observing these fixed layouts, it occurred to me...this actually makes more sense.
1) Fixed width (having experienced writing structured document renderers I can say for a fact) render faster than fluid layouts.
2) The layout is consisten across the board, regardless of screen resolution
3) Much easier CSS
While I am not discounting the requirement for fluid layouts, I'm not sure I'm convined anymore that fluidity is important for the layout of a web site.
In the past, I always wanted a web site layout that adapted to it's window, so even at half size, the web site looked the same and fit the window perfectly. However I now argue that this simply isn't a requirement as I don't know of anyone who surfs with *only* half their window...
Perhaps those of you that browse with your favourites and IE Search window open might argue that fluid designs are nice as you get your cake and eat it too. But I think for the most part, people surf expecting the full window to be used by the HTML layout engine.
Considering my arguments and personal preferences aside (please) can anyone think of a situation where a fluid design may be required?
I've thought about this and can't really think of any reason to continue supporting fluid layouts???
For years I have always prefered a fluid layout and is the driving force behind me not wanting to learn CSS to create fluid layouts, as it's doubly difficult.
However I just view a few web sites which used a fixed width design, which fit nicely in 800x600 and obviously in everything greater (1024, etc) and I must say, the way they were designed...looked pretty solid...
While observing these fixed layouts, it occurred to me...this actually makes more sense.
1) Fixed width (having experienced writing structured document renderers I can say for a fact) render faster than fluid layouts.
2) The layout is consisten across the board, regardless of screen resolution
3) Much easier CSS
While I am not discounting the requirement for fluid layouts, I'm not sure I'm convined anymore that fluidity is important for the layout of a web site.
In the past, I always wanted a web site layout that adapted to it's window, so even at half size, the web site looked the same and fit the window perfectly. However I now argue that this simply isn't a requirement as I don't know of anyone who surfs with *only* half their window...
Perhaps those of you that browse with your favourites and IE Search window open might argue that fluid designs are nice as you get your cake and eat it too. But I think for the most part, people surf expecting the full window to be used by the HTML layout engine.
Considering my arguments and personal preferences aside (please) can anyone think of a situation where a fluid design may be required?
I've thought about this and can't really think of any reason to continue supporting fluid layouts???
I think it depends entirely on content. Sites with little text, and mostly images/design I don't see any need at all for a fluid design... in fact I think they look ridiculous with fluid layout. Often I see fluid layouts where there is a good deal of contend on the left side of the page (about 800px from left to right) and then a giant gap from there to the right side of the page... so there is about 25% of the screen on the middle/right that is not used...
fluid layouts are almost necessary, however for text-rich sites such as this one.
fluid layouts are almost necessary, however for text-rich sites such as this one.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Hmmmm...
Just made me realize something...content should be fluid....but layout's should be fixed...but if the layout is fixed...then the content doesn't need to be fluid...
Of course: "The medium is the message"
Just kidding with that last part...But yea...a fixed layout truely makes sense *scratches chin*
Just made me realize something...content should be fluid....but layout's should be fixed...but if the layout is fixed...then the content doesn't need to be fluid...
Of course: "The medium is the message"
Just kidding with that last part...But yea...a fixed layout truely makes sense *scratches chin*
Fluid layouts all the way. Sure it's a little more difficult to make look perfect all the time - but at least you're using all the screen.
Whitespace is/should be considered when desigining a site. You want whitespace to not overload the user. But when I'm looking at a site designed for 800px on my 1280 (or even 1600 screen), I get WAY too much whitespace.
This is, of course, a personal opinion - but I'd rather see a site that looks pretty good & fills my screen, than see a site that looks dang good (note: 'dang' > 'pretty') but only fills 800px. It just strikes me as lazy.
I think what you mentioned ~hockey about the difficulty of making fluid CSS layouts is what contributes a lot to static width pages. It's actually fun to make statically width-ed pages in CSS, but once you get into fluid layouts, it's hell.
Whitespace is/should be considered when desigining a site. You want whitespace to not overload the user. But when I'm looking at a site designed for 800px on my 1280 (or even 1600 screen), I get WAY too much whitespace.
This is, of course, a personal opinion - but I'd rather see a site that looks pretty good & fills my screen, than see a site that looks dang good (note: 'dang' > 'pretty') but only fills 800px. It just strikes me as lazy.
I think what you mentioned ~hockey about the difficulty of making fluid CSS layouts is what contributes a lot to static width pages. It's actually fun to make statically width-ed pages in CSS, but once you get into fluid layouts, it's hell.
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
see... this is the argument that I don't get. If there is not enough content to fill a page, than the entire bottom half of the screen is whitespace... so what's the difference? At least the fixed layout still looks awesome with all the whitespace...
I don't see the need for a fluid layouts when it comes to MOST websites.
I don't see the need for a fluid layouts when it comes to MOST websites.
It's the 'first page' phenomenon. Stuff people can see on the page without having to scroll gets way more attention than stuff people have to see if they scroll down.
In the extremely few cases where every page on a website can be shown in a smaller than 800px X 600px rectangle, then ya - a fixed layout would make more sense.
In the extremely few cases where every page on a website can be shown in a smaller than 800px X 600px rectangle, then ya - a fixed layout would make more sense.
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
I have a wide screen monitor which is 1680 pixels wide so viewing a "fluid" site such as this, at full screen looks pretty ridiculous. Of course I never actually view any sites full screen and usually have a number of windows open, but many users (my missus included) will instinctively hit the maximise button.
I personally prefer fixed width sites, but more importantly fixed content areas for the main body of text. Text is far easier to read when you have say 10 or so words per line. I mean, how many newspapers have you seen where the text flows across the whole page?
I personally prefer fixed width sites, but more importantly fixed content areas for the main body of text. Text is far easier to read when you have say 10 or so words per line. I mean, how many newspapers have you seen where the text flows across the whole page?
-
d3ad1ysp0rk
- Forum Donator
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
- Christopher
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 13596
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: New York, NY, US
I hate to state the obvious, but isn't a fluid layout for when you want a fluid layout and a fixed layout for when you want a fixed layout. For somethings you want one and for other things you want the other.
It gets to be one of those discussions that is not about what it is about (e.g. OO vs Procedural). A more informative discussion might be about the kinds of content and designs that lend themselves to a fluid layout and those that lend themselves to a fixed layout.
It gets to be one of those discussions that is not about what it is about (e.g. OO vs Procedural). A more informative discussion might be about the kinds of content and designs that lend themselves to a fluid layout and those that lend themselves to a fixed layout.
(#10850)
well saidarborint wrote:I hate to state the obvious, but isn't a fluid layout for when you want a fluid layout and a fixed layout for when you want a fixed layout. For somethings you want one and for other things you want the other.
It gets to be one of those discussions that is not about what it is about (e.g. OO vs Procedural). A more informative discussion might be about the kinds of content and designs that lend themselves to a fluid layout and those that lend themselves to a fixed layout.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
AgreedThe Ninja Space Goat wrote:see... this is the argument that I don't get. If there is not enough content to fill a page, than the entire bottom half of the screen is whitespace... so what's the difference? At least the fixed layout still looks awesome with all the whitespace...
I don't see the need for a fluid layouts when it comes to MOST websites.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
True enough. I realize this is a 'personal opinion' type subject. I just wanted to get a general consensus of what a developer community felt.arborint wrote:I hate to state the obvious, but isn't a fluid layout for when you want a fluid layout and a fixed layout for when you want a fixed layout. For somethings you want one and for other things you want the other.
- Christopher
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 13596
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: New York, NY, US
For me the key criteria is whether or not the application designer knows what the content will look like. I have found that typically when I do not know what the user of the application will use as content I opt for fluid layouts; whereas when I know what the content will be I opt for more static layouts. Not really much 'personal opinion' -- it is more the case that inflexible designs are generally easier to create than flexible ones and therefore more often meet the "budgetary constraints."Hockey wrote:True enough. I realize this is a 'personal opinion' type subject. I just wanted to get a general consensus of what a developer community felt.
(#10850)
Indeed, the choice depends a lot on the content of the website. Is it a brochure-like website with some pixel-perfect graphic header image? Is the content known and not expected to change a lot? You might go for a fixed layout.
Or is the website very interactive, application-like (email, forms, forums, etc) and are the chances big that users would like to be able to customize their browser in a way that suits them? For example, I can imagine people with high-res monitors looking at the code on this forum would prefer to be able to enlarge/maximise their browser window.
Also, for many "portal-like" sites with loads of info I think fluid works better because the page needs the space.
Or is the website very interactive, application-like (email, forms, forums, etc) and are the chances big that users would like to be able to customize their browser in a way that suits them? For example, I can imagine people with high-res monitors looking at the code on this forum would prefer to be able to enlarge/maximise their browser window.
Also, for many "portal-like" sites with loads of info I think fluid works better because the page needs the space.