Old 07-05-2008, 12:44   #21 (permalink)
StumpyXL
Registered User
 
StumpyXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 61
Send a message via AIM to StumpyXL
1024x768 is standard today. If you really want to know ask if the client would rather have a fixed or a fluid setup.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 13:23   #22 (permalink)
adras
Zły
 
adras's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,866
Send a message via MSN to adras
Keep it real at 640x480
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 13:37   #23 (permalink)
pgo
Moderator
 
pgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 11,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Gooder
my face is flexible but has a max width. do i pass?
Yes.

You're lucky we're not talking aesthetics, though.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 14:25   #24 (permalink)
Do Gooder
                         
 
Do Gooder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,319
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 16:19   #25 (permalink)
bazzle
Senior Member
 
bazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby uk
Posts: 358
Send a message via MSN to bazzle
This ones a fiery debate.

I'm not a fan of fluid. Fluid sites often screw up a layout by displaying one particular element on the other side of the other with a mass of ugly white space in between.

I also think it's a huge plus being able to take into account how wide lines of text and laying out your site for optimum usability. That all goes out of the window with fluid width.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 16:58   #26 (permalink)
Dusteh
Sir digby chicken caesar
 
Dusteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,594
Quote:
often screw up a layout by displaying one particular element on the other side of the other with a mass of ugly white space in between.

To be fair that would just be due to bad build rather than a flaw of fluid itself, the elements in the page should flow using percentages within the fluid container so that doesn't happen.
__________________
unconsolidated isoparms
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 17:38   #27 (permalink)
pgo
Moderator
 
pgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 11,869
Yeah, as has been said several times. That's what max- and min-width are for.

Also, I think herk is referring to elastic layouts - that expand and contract, but are based on font-size (so, sized using ems instead of pixels). Those get crazy with the math, though.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 18:43   #28 (permalink)
bazzle
Senior Member
 
bazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby uk
Posts: 358
Send a message via MSN to bazzle
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgo
Yeah, as has been said several times. That's what max- and min-width are for.

Also, I think herk is referring to elastic layouts - that expand and contract, but are based on font-size (so, sized using ems instead of pixels). Those get crazy with the math, though.

Like this

陳 Jon Tan

I don't think he was referring to elastic width, as all elastic does is resizes the whole page when you increase/decrease the font size.

As far as I undersatand It doesn't resize with the browser window which is what's being discussed.

Quote:
To be fair that would just be due to bad build rather than a flaw of fluid itself, the elements in the page should flow using percentages within the fluid container so that doesn't happen.

True, but most sites resize just the main content and the left or right boxes stay the same width. I think the only thing that can be fluid is the main content otherwise the layout screws up.
  Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Contact Us - Web Design Forums - Archive - Top
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8