public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feed"Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
24+ messages / 9 participants
[nested] [flat]
* "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
@ 2004-11-20 20:16 Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-11-20 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
Robert, Dave:
Hey, I wanted to settle -- or at least discuss -- the "stretchy" issue on
website designs. Aside from Omar's design, I think this is a useful issue
to settle for a draft website spec, and *having* browsed the archives, I
don't feel that it was ever discussed fully. Tom, Robert and Dave have
expressed that they *like* variable-width in the past, but I cannot find any
discussion on the WWW list that lays out why we would, as a group, find it
important to choose variable over fixed width.
So, some comparisons:
If you look at corporate websites, they tend to go for fixed-width:
www.ibm.com
www.hp.com
www.redhat.com
www.ca.com
www.sun.com
http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/index.html
www.vmware.com
www.apple.com
www.harpercollins.com
... in fact, I've been trying this morning to find a large tech software or
hardware manufacturer web site that uses variable-width, and cannot.
The sites that go for variable width seem to be:
(a) News sites
www.the451.com
www.slashdot.org
www.theregister.co.uk
... but not, interestingly, www.cnn.com
(b) Open Source projects/companies
www.mozilla.org
www.mysql.com
http://www.jboss.org/products/index
www.kde.org
www.debian.org
... actually, it's interesting how the web world is split; the big proprietary
software/hardware companies seem to almost universally opt for fixed-width,
and those centered around OSS projects are pretty much universally
variable-width. Partly the OSS projects are explainable because many (if
not most) of them use community website packages which tend to be universally
variable-width.
What this means, I don't know. Thoughts?
What it seems to show me is that either format strategy is "valid" and
"contemporary" and that our decision should be based on practical and
aesthetic concerns, and not on what's "too 90's".
So, do people have reasons why one is better than the other?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 03:02 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-21 03:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So, do people have reasons why one is better than the other?
I like fix-width since it tends to mean that the "layout" will be the same
no matter how I stretch/shrink my browser ... for example, the news links
will always span the same # of lines, as opposed to sometimes spanning
three lines cause I'm too narrow, or on one line because I stretch it to
its limit ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 15:30 ` Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Mitch Pirtle @ 2004-11-21 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
I'm not a layout person, but I will wager that any
professionally-trained designer will tell you that variable-width
layouts are asking for trouble. I designed a few templates that
looked great, untl someone with a 1600x1200 or whatever monster LCD
maximized the window - then that carefully crafted layout was blown to
bits...
My $0.02.
-- Mitch
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:02:05 -0400 (AST), Marc G. Fournier
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > So, do people have reasons why one is better than the other?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 19:07 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Robert Treat @ 2004-11-21 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
Thats because most "professionally-trained" designers are idiots when it comes
to web design. They want to create artwork like on TV's and magazines
(because what they really want to be are graphic artists), and they don't
understand that the web is a different medium. Different users have
different monitor sizes, and the view text in different font-sizes, and they
will even view the new website in different languagues. Anyone who has study
web usability will understand that trying to force your viewpoint of a design
on someone else just leads to trouble.
Robert Treat
On Sunday 21 November 2004 10:30, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> I'm not a layout person, but I will wager that any
> professionally-trained designer will tell you that variable-width
> layouts are asking for trouble. I designed a few templates that
> looked great, untl someone with a 1600x1200 or whatever monster LCD
> maximized the window - then that carefully crafted layout was blown to
> bits...
>
> My $0.02.
>
> -- Mitch
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:02:05 -0400 (AST), Marc G. Fournier
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > So, do people have reasons why one is better than the other?
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [email protected])
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 21:34 ` Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Mitch Pirtle @ 2004-11-21 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
Let's not confuse opinion with fact here. Whether you like fixed
width or variable is opinion.
Multicolumn text becoming unreadable when the column widths are not
controlled is a fact.
Anyone can design a layout that stretches to utilize all available
screen real estate. But that doesn't mean that the aesthetics or
usability remains constant as the layout dramatically changes - it
either looks great at larger sizes (and lousy on small ones), or great
on small sizes (and lousy on large ones).
I personally don't have a preference, but can say there are some very,
VERY intelligent people who have put a tremendous amount of time and
effort in order to learn what does and does not work. Perhaps the
pundits on C|Net or eWeek are the 'idiots' that you effortlessly
categorize, but there are also professionals out there that have
expertise that is significantly superior to anyone on this list.
-- Mitch, knowing when his expertise reaches its limits (hint hint)
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:07:14 -0500, Robert Treat
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thats because most "professionally-trained" designers are idiots when it comes
> to web design. They want to create artwork like on TV's and magazines
> (because what they really want to be are graphic artists), and they don't
> understand that the web is a different medium. Different users have
> different monitor sizes, and the view text in different font-sizes, and they
> will even view the new website in different languagues. Anyone who has study
> web usability will understand that trying to force your viewpoint of a design
> on someone else just leads to trouble.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 15:30 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 16:28 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Robert Treat @ 2004-11-22 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
On Sunday 21 November 2004 16:34, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> Let's not confuse opinion with fact here. Whether you like fixed
> width or variable is opinion.
>
Whether you "like" it is opinion (highly dependent on the proximity of your
browser settings to those of the designer in the fixed widht world).
Which one is better practice of good web usability is not, it is variable
width.
> Multicolumn text becoming unreadable when the column widths are not
> controlled is a fact.
>
Entire websites becoming unreadable because the site design cannot adjust to
people who need to read with large font sizes is a fact.
variable width <> uncontrolled. take a look at mozilla.org or debian.org, for
sites that scale very well over several hundread pixel differences in browser
width.
> Anyone can design a layout that stretches to utilize all available
> screen real estate. But that doesn't mean that the aesthetics or
> usability remains constant as the layout dramatically changes - it
> either looks great at larger sizes (and lousy on small ones), or great
> on small sizes (and lousy on large ones).
>
Again, look at php.net. Aesthetically speaking, it looks great on both small
and large browser sizes.
Further you're still overlooking that a fixed width website cannot maintain a
constant aesthetic or usable interface, since things like browser size,
monitor size, screen resolution, text size, languague, and use of graphics,
can all be changed on the users end.
> I personally don't have a preference, but can say there are some very,
> VERY intelligent people who have put a tremendous amount of time and
> effort in order to learn what does and does not work. Perhaps the
> pundits on C|Net or eWeek are the 'idiots' that you effortlessly
> categorize, but there are also professionals out there that have
> expertise that is significantly superior to anyone on this list.
>
The professionals who have studied this are not the pundits on eWeek and C|
Net, and they have come down on the side of variable width websites.
> -- Mitch, knowing when his expertise reaches its limits (hint hint)
>
-- Robert, who happens to have a bit of expertise on this subject, as I use to
do information architecture and web usability work professionally.
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:07:14 -0500, Robert Treat
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thats because most "professionally-trained" designers are idiots when it
> > comes to web design. They want to create artwork like on TV's and
> > magazines (because what they really want to be are graphic artists), and
> > they don't understand that the web is a different medium. Different
> > users have different monitor sizes, and the view text in different
> > font-sizes, and they will even view the new website in different
> > languagues. Anyone who has study web usability will understand that
> > trying to force your viewpoint of a design on someone else just leads to
> > trouble.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 16:28 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-22 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; +Cc: Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> Entire websites becoming unreadable because the site design cannot
> adjust to people who need to read with large font sizes is a fact.
This is a *good* point ... I tend to run my X at a font size that most ppl
looking at it have to squint or go right close to the monitor for ... I
know some that have to run larger fonts because of eye sight problems ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 17:19 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2004-11-22 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; +Cc: Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
>Whether you "like" it is opinion (highly dependent on the proximity of your
>browser settings to those of the designer in the fixed widht world).
>
>Which one is better practice of good web usability is not, it is variable
>width.
>
>
>
Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.
>variable width <> uncontrolled. take a look at mozilla.org or debian.org, for
>sites that scale very well over several hundread pixel differences in browser
>width.
>
>
True but it still doesn't scale to 1600x1200 and nor should it.
I think it is definately a good idea to allow resizing to a particular
size that is smaller. Mozilla does an excellent job to 640x480.
I think that is a little extreme and that 800x600 is plenty.
>>Anyone can design a layout that stretches to utilize all available
>>screen real estate. But that doesn't mean that the aesthetics or
>>usability remains constant as the layout dramatically changes - it
>>either looks great at larger sizes (and lousy on small ones), or great
>>on small sizes (and lousy on large ones).
>>
>>
>>
>
>Again, look at php.net. Aesthetically speaking, it looks great on both small
>and large browser sizes.
>
>
Well actually php.net looks horrible in general but I get your point.
O.k. I have a question, it sounds like everyone is arguing about different
things.
Are we arguing that the website should be fixed-width as in:
A. I am 1024x768 I will not resize PERIOD.
Or:
B. I am 1024x768 I will not resize to smaller than that.
To be honest this whole time I was arguing that we don't need
to scale UP. E.g; we can set the max to 1024x768 if you have a bigger
screen, great but it will still be 1024x768. However if you have a smaller
screen, we will try an accomodate you to a resolution of X.. (my IMHO would
be 800x600).
If I am incorrect on this argument, let me say now that we absolutely need
to allow scaling to smaller resolutions (to a point). Anything else would
be very silly.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachments:
[text/x-vcard] jd.vcf (285B, 2-jd.vcf)
download | inline:
begin:vcard
fn:Joshua Drake
n:Drake;Joshua
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 17:58 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 18:03 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 19:31 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-23 01:57 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-11-22 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Josh, Robert, people:
> >Whether you "like" it is opinion (highly dependent on the proximity of
> > your browser settings to those of the designer in the fixed widht world).
> Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
> matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.
Can we kill this now? We're none of us so rich in free time that flames are
necessary.
From what I can tell, Fixed-width vs. Variable-width is a *tradeoff*, and you
gain and lose things either way. Let me sum up the pros for each:
Fixed-Width
-- Supports more polished designs
-- More "corporate"
-- supports better visual organization of navigation
-- better for websites with many images
-- cuts down on scrolling
-- emphasizes design
Variable-Width
-- Supports a greater variety of browser/language settings
-- More "open source"
-- better for large quantities of text content
-- emphasizes content
Do people agree with the above points?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 18:03 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 20:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2004-11-22 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
>>Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
>>matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.
>>
>>
>
>Can we kill this now? We're none of us so rich in free time that flames are
>necessary.
>
>
Ahhh I haven't see one flame in this thread??? I don't believe that
Robert would have considered that a flame (at least I hope not).
>>From what I can tell, Fixed-width vs. Variable-width is a *tradeoff*, and you
>gain and lose things either way. Let me sum up the pros for each:
>
>Fixed-Width
> -- Supports more polished designs
> -- More "corporate"
> -- supports better visual organization of navigation
> -- better for websites with many images
> -- cuts down on scrolling
> -- emphasizes design
>
>Variable-Width
> -- Supports a greater variety of browser/language settings
> -- More "open source"
> -- better for large quantities of text content
> -- emphasizes content
>
>Do people agree with the above points?
>
>
I agree with everything but the emphasizes.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachments:
[text/x-vcard] jd.vcf (299B, 2-jd.vcf)
download | inline:
begin:vcard
fn:Joshua Drake
n:Drake;Joshua
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 18:03 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 20:58 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Robert Treat @ 2004-11-22 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Monday 22 November 2004 13:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
> >>matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.
> >
> >Can we kill this now? We're none of us so rich in free time that flames
> > are necessary.
>
> Ahhh I haven't see one flame in this thread??? I don't believe that
> Robert would have considered that a flame (at least I hope not).
>
Not a flame, just an uneducated response :-) For a long while people argued
the world was flat even after Magellan made his way back around, but for the
people who had studied it, the jury was out and we knew it was round.
Now, I'm willing to concede that there are some places where fixed width can
be used without sacrificing usability, like a kiosk system or possibly on a
small company intranet where you have a single browser mandate, and the
computers involved are all uniform, however an internationalized web site of
an open source project certainly doesn't fall into that category.
> >>From what I can tell, Fixed-width vs. Variable-width is a *tradeoff*, and
> >> you
> >
> >gain and lose things either way. Let me sum up the pros for each:
> >
> >Fixed-Width
> > -- Supports more polished designs
> > -- More "corporate"
> > -- supports better visual organization of navigation
> > -- better for websites with many images
> > -- cuts down on scrolling
> > -- emphasizes design
> >
i don't believe it leads to more polished design. actually just the opposite,
since a good variable width design is what really looks slick imo, probably
because it is hard to do.
i dont see how it supports better visual organization of navigation either.
actually i would tend to think it is worse, since your more likely to
introduce issues with horizontal scrolling or wasted/unused browser space
with fixed width.
> >Variable-Width
> > -- Supports a greater variety of browser/language settings
> > -- More "open source"
> > -- better for large quantities of text content
> > -- emphasizes content
> >
> >Do people agree with the above points?
>
Let me add a few pluses for variable width:
-- allows users to resize text as needed
-- promotes better scanability of site content
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-22 19:31 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-22 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; Robert Treat <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh, Robert, people:
>
>>> Whether you "like" it is opinion (highly dependent on the proximity of
>>> your browser settings to those of the designer in the fixed widht world).
>> Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
>> matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.
>
> Can we kill this now? We're none of us so rich in free time that flames are
> necessary.
>
> From what I can tell, Fixed-width vs. Variable-width is a *tradeoff*, and you
> gain and lose things either way. Let me sum up the pros for each:
>
> Fixed-Width
> -- Supports more polished designs
> -- More "corporate"
> -- supports better visual organization of navigation
> -- better for websites with many images
> -- cuts down on scrolling
> -- emphasizes design
>
> Variable-Width
> -- Supports a greater variety of browser/language settings
> -- More "open source"
> -- better for large quantities of text content
> -- emphasizes content
>
> Do people agree with the above points?
I think that about sums it up ... not sure about the more "open source" vs
"corporate", but for arguments sake, okay :)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-23 01:57 ` Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Greg Sabino Mullane @ 2004-11-23 01:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Do people agree with the above points?
Only if you move most of the items from "fixed-width" into the
"variable-width" category. Browsers are for content, not
presentation. You can guide, but not enforce. You can still
have a great looking web site without specifying a single
absolute measurement.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [email protected]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200411222058
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFBopl+vJuQZxSWSsgRAsTMAJ4lRvDn1SaAkxlIBkxfMv9FJd/3xwCfW24t
sTbQ7Tnn4q21fbiPqerbAeU=
=wzms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
@ 2004-11-21 17:24 Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-11-21 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Hi Josh,
Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
I originally designed the current fixed-width site, which at the time various people liked, however, the one complaint that I think many of us kept hearing was that it should be variable width so ppl could utilise their screen real estate if they wished. Originally, Robert worked on just that update to the current site iirc.
Personnally, I don't care which way it goes, but based on feedback I've heard over the last couple of years, stretchy is definately preferred by others.
/D
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] on behalf of Josh Berkus
Sent: Sat 11/20/2004 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [pgsql-www] "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
Robert, Dave:
Hey, I wanted to settle -- or at least discuss -- the "stretchy" issue on
website designs. Aside from Omar's design, I think this is a useful issue
to settle for a draft website spec, and *having* browsed the archives, I
don't feel that it was ever discussed fully. Tom, Robert and Dave have
expressed that they *like* variable-width in the past, but I cannot find any
discussion on the WWW list that lays out why we would, as a group, find it
important to choose variable over fixed width.
So, some comparisons:
If you look at corporate websites, they tend to go for fixed-width:
www.ibm.com
www.hp.com
www.redhat.com
www.ca.com
www.sun.com
http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/index.html
www.vmware.com
www.apple.com
www.harpercollins.com
... in fact, I've been trying this morning to find a large tech software or
hardware manufacturer web site that uses variable-width, and cannot.
The sites that go for variable width seem to be:
(a) News sites
www.the451.com
www.slashdot.org
www.theregister.co.uk
... but not, interestingly, www.cnn.com
(b) Open Source projects/companies
www.mozilla.org
www.mysql.com
http://www.jboss.org/products/index
www.kde.org
www.debian.org
... actually, it's interesting how the web world is split; the big proprietary
software/hardware companies seem to almost universally opt for fixed-width,
and those centered around OSS projects are pretty much universally
variable-width. Partly the OSS projects are explainable because many (if
not most) of them use community website packages which tend to be universally
variable-width.
What this means, I don't know. Thoughts?
What it seems to show me is that either format strategy is "valid" and
"contemporary" and that our decision should be based on practical and
aesthetic concerns, and not on what's "too 90's".
So, do people have reasons why one is better than the other?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [email protected])
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 18:17 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-21 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dave Page wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
'k, you do realize that mentioning microsoft *really* doesn't work in
"variable-widths" favor, eh? :)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 18:56 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2004-11-21 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; +Cc: Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
>
>
> 'k, you do realize that mentioning microsoft *really* doesn't work in
> "variable-widths" favor, eh? :)
Although I appreciate the humor, Microsoft is actually a good example.
Yes they are considered by
many as "the Enemy". However they are widely respected even amongst
people who hate them as marketing genuises.
A website although primarily a tool, it is primarily a marketing tool.
Something to think about :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
> 7615664
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachments:
[text/x-vcard] jd.vcf (285B, 2-jd.vcf)
download | inline:
begin:vcard
fn:Joshua Drake
n:Drake;Joshua
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 19:13 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-21 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Actually, looking at the Microsoft website Dave pointed to, it looks
fixed-width to me ... and left justified instead of centered ... I wish
doing a 'view source' was a bit easier to read, but from the way their
javascript is defined at the top, it looks to be fixed to 855?
<body onLoad="initPopup()" onUnload="exitPopup()">
<script type="text/javascript">
var isW;isW=(document&&document.body.clientWidth&&document.body.clientWidth>=895&&document.getElementById);
</script>
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
>>
>>
>> 'k, you do realize that mentioning microsoft *really* doesn't work in
>> "variable-widths" favor, eh? :)
>
> Although I appreciate the humor, Microsoft is actually a good example. Yes
> they are considered by
> many as "the Enemy". However they are widely respected even amongst people
> who hate them as marketing genuises.
> A website although primarily a tool, it is primarily a marketing tool.
>
> Something to think about :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
>> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 19:16 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-21 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; +Cc: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Note that if you go to a sub page, their "center content" appear to be
fixed-width, while their top/bottom banner appears to be variable-width
... *really* looks odd ...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Actually, looking at the Microsoft website Dave pointed to, it looks
> fixed-width to me ... and left justified instead of centered ... I wish doing
> a 'view source' was a bit easier to read, but from the way their javascript
> is defined at the top, it looks to be fixed to 855?
>
> <body onLoad="initPopup()" onUnload="exitPopup()">
> <script type="text/javascript">
> var
> isW;isW=(document&&document.body.clientWidth&&document.body.clientWidth>=895&&document.getElementById);
> </script>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dave Page wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>
>>>> Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> 'k, you do realize that mentioning microsoft *really* doesn't work in
>>> "variable-widths" favor, eh? :)
>>
>> Although I appreciate the humor, Microsoft is actually a good example. Yes
>> they are considered by
>> many as "the Enemy". However they are widely respected even amongst people
>> who hate them as marketing genuises.
>> A website although primarily a tool, it is primarily a marketing tool.
>>
>> Something to think about :)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
>>> (http://www.hub.org)
>>> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
>>> 7615664
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
>> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
>> +1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
>> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 19:16 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:41 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 22:59 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Justin Clift <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 23:10 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Omar Kilani <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 3 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Joshua D. Drake @ 2004-11-21 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; +Cc: Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Actually, looking at the Microsoft website Dave pointed to, it looks
> fixed-width to me ... and left justified instead of centered ... I
> wish doing a 'view source' was a bit easier to read, but from the way
> their javascript is defined at the top, it looks to be fixed to 855?
Yes it is a fixed width site. I was just making comment to your
Microsoft comment :).
Also I prefer fixed width sites. A fixed width site is much easier to
maintain, sets
specific guidelines for you content presentation and makes you actually
think about
how you are going to layout the site.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> <body DEFANGED_OnLoad="initPopup()" DEFANGED_OnUnload="exitPopup()">
> <DEFANGED_script type="text/javascript">
> var
> isW;isW=(document&&document.body.clientWidth&&document.body.clientWidth>=895&&document.getElementById);
>
> </script>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dave Page wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>
>>>> Add www.microsoft.com to the list of variable ones :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'k, you do realize that mentioning microsoft *really* doesn't work
>>> in "variable-widths" favor, eh? :)
>>
>>
>> Although I appreciate the humor, Microsoft is actually a good
>> example. Yes they are considered by
>> many as "the Enemy". However they are widely respected even amongst
>> people who hate them as marketing genuises.
>> A website although primarily a tool, it is primarily a marketing tool.
>>
>> Something to think about :)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
>>> (http://www.hub.org)
>>> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
>>> 7615664
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of
>>> broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
>> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
>> +1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
>> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
> 7615664
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - [email protected] - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachments:
[text/x-vcard] jd.vcf (285B, 2-jd.vcf)
download | inline:
begin:vcard
fn:Joshua Drake
n:Drake;Joshua
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 19:41 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-11-21 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, looking at the Microsoft website Dave pointed to, it looks
>> fixed-width to me ... and left justified instead of centered ... I wish
>> doing a 'view source' was a bit easier to read, but from the way their
>> javascript is defined at the top, it looks to be fixed to 855?
>
>
> Yes it is a fixed width site. I was just making comment to your Microsoft
> comment :).
Ya, it was your comment that prompted me to look at the site a bit closer
:)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 22:59 ` Justin Clift <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Justin Clift @ 2004-11-21 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
<snip>
> A fixed width site is much easier to maintain
For something that's based on opinion, shouldn't we then start looking
at other qualities?
For example, the above comment by Joshua "A fixed width site is much
easier to maintain" seems to be accurate for one of the most important
points for the web team.
We don't have copious amounts of time to tweak stuff, so taking the
lower-maintenance approach would be a better idea wouldn't it?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
<snip>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
@ 2004-11-21 23:10 ` Omar Kilani <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Omar Kilani @ 2004-11-21 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
Hi,
> Yes it is a fixed width site. I was just making comment to your
> Microsoft comment :). Also I prefer fixed width sites. A fixed width
> site is much easier to maintain, sets specific guidelines for you
> content presentation and makes you actually think about how you are
> going to layout the site.
Upon further consideration of the fixed width vs. "stretchy" issue, we
have decided that there is one part of the site that would benefit
greatly from a stretchy design, and that is documentation.
See the example we've created:
http://postgresql.tinysofa.com/files/docs.html
The reason that we believe that variable width is a better approach for
documentation in particular is that people have different viewing
preferences when referring to manuals or books online. The readability
of online docs is improved if it is possible for the user to resize the
text and the width of the browser window to accommodate their viewing
preferences. Some may want to use all of their real estate while reading
the docs, while others may only want to use 1/4 of their screen so that
they can refer to the docs whilst coding at the same time.
(Having said that, it's worth noting that while our example page has no
*minimum* width for text, it does have a sensible maximum (IE tweaks
pending) to stop it from scaling and becoming unreadable on huge screens.)
However, while there are compelling reasons for docs to be variable
width, we don't believe that people would be reading the rest of the
site in the same way. It is most likely that somebody visiting the
PostgreSQL website would be viewing it with their window maximized, and
it is unlikely that they would want to refer to content outside of docs
whilst performing another activity (as in the example above). Therefore,
it's unlikely that someone would want to view the site in a width
smaller than the minimum of 800.
We don't believe there is much of a case for allowing the site (apart
from docs) to expand beyond the fixed layout width of 800. As mentioned
by others on this list, variable width produces unpredictable results on
a carefully designed layout. We believe that being able to control the
layout from a design perspective, and the ability of the user to view
the site as the designer intended (the way the majority of users would
want to view it anyway) are good arguments for fixed width design and
why so many designers choose this option.
Omar and Emily
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
@ 2004-11-21 21:28 Dave Page <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-11-21 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 21 November 2004 19:14
> To: Joshua D. Drake
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; Dave Page; Josh Berkus; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
>
>
> Actually, looking at the Microsoft website Dave pointed to,
> it looks fixed-width to me ... and left justified instead of
> centered ... I wish doing a 'view source' was a bit easier to
> read, but from the way their javascript is defined at the
> top, it looks to be fixed to 855?
Yeah, they seem have have changed it recently. Try the 'Windows Server
System' link, or http://msdn.microsoft.com to see examples of the older
style.
I agree with Joshua incidently (which is why I mentioned the site in the
first place). Many ppl hate Microsoft, but they are undeniably good at
user interface design.
/D
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
@ 2004-11-23 09:54 Dave Page <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-11-23 09:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>; +Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: 22 November 2004 17:58
> To: Joshua D. Drake
> Cc: Robert Treat; PostgreSQL www
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
>
>
> Fixed-Width
> -- Supports more polished designs
> -- More "corporate"
> -- supports better visual organization of navigation
> -- better for websites with many images
> -- cuts down on scrolling
> -- emphasizes design
>
> Variable-Width
> -- Supports a greater variety of browser/language settings
> -- More "open source"
> -- better for large quantities of text content
> -- emphasizes content
>
> Do people agree with the above points?
Add the following to fixed width:
- The most commonly complained-about feature of the current site.
/D
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-23 09:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-20 20:16 "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 03:02 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 15:30 ` Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:07 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:34 ` Mitch Pirtle <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 15:30 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 16:28 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 17:58 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 18:03 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 20:58 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]>
2004-11-22 19:31 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-23 01:57 ` Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 17:24 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:17 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 18:56 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:13 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:16 ` Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 19:41 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 22:59 ` Justin Clift <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 23:10 ` Omar Kilani <[email protected]>
2004-11-21 21:28 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-11-23 09:54 Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width Dave Page <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox