Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

I would say that there is always a case for using absolute positioning on
webpages rather than liquid layouts. Absolute positioning is used on most
big websites.

For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear when
using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk

Would anybody say that liquid layouts are always what is most desirable, and
that when that they are not used it is due to the incompetence of the
designer?

Cheers

ss.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:36:07
GMT Synapse Syndrome scribed:

>
> I would say that there is always a case for using absolute positioning
> on webpages rather than liquid layouts. Absolute positioning is used
> on most big websites.

You would be wrong.

> For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear
> when using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk

Actually, the site is somewhat successfully liquid via javascript. This
demonstrates that the site _could have_ been completely liquid had the
creator been less inept.

> Would anybody say that liquid layouts are always what is most
> desirable, and that when that they are not used it is due to the
> incompetence of the designer?

Not I, but those using fixed layouts almost never have to.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9A2C8E8EB5DCCnanopandaneredbojias@194.177.96.78...
>
>> For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear
>> when using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk
>
> Actually, the site is somewhat successfully liquid via javascript. This
> demonstrates that the site _could have_ been completely liquid had the
> creator been less inept.

Inept? I'd have to disregard what else you've said in that case. That site
is often used as an example of good design in the UK. Could you find a
better designed news site? I really doubt it. Making that site with a
liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting problems to the people making
the content. It'd just be a mess.

ss.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote in message
news:ndadnYU7oaHTkAjaRVnyjwA@bt.com...
> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.

Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you don't
really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be quite
easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to the people
generating the content. My belief that you don't understand is reinforced
by your use of the term absolute positioning instead of fixed width.
Absolute positioning means something quite different -- I use absolute
positioning in my liquid layouts.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article ,
"Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:

> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
> news:Xns9A2C8E8EB5DCCnanopandaneredbojias@194.177.96.78...
> >
> >> For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear
> >> when using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk
> >
> > Actually, the site is somewhat successfully liquid via javascript. This
> > demonstrates that the site _could have_ been completely liquid had the
> > creator been less inept.
>
> Inept? I'd have to disregard what else you've said in that case. That site
> is often used as an example of good design in the UK. Could you find a
> better designed news site? I really doubt it. Making that site with a
> liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting problems to the people making
> the content. It'd just be a mess.
>


OK lets look at a typical page:



It uses a transitional doctype. Perhaps this is ok. Some people
will wonder what it is transitioning from. But still it has lots
of errors. I saw a count above 80.

There are some css ones too. Perhaps these latter things are not
that important and due to various hacks to ward off greater
dangers...

But there are some nasty looking things like body {font-size:
small...} which do not auger well. It is not a good thing to
start the day with. The authors actually admit (in a comment on
body):

"For most browsers we want to default to font-size small, but for
IE 5 PC we want to use x-small, as it's font sizes are one size
out"

Now, I am not saying that a table layout is a terrible crime - it
is not - but you cannot have a table layout like this site uses
these days for non tabular material and trumpet too loudly its
good design, much less hold it up as an example.

Not saying the site is incompetent. It is not.

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Synapse Syndrome wrote:
> I would say that there is always a case for using absolute positioning on
> webpages rather than liquid layouts.

I think you're confused here - it's not a "rather than". A web page can
use absolute positioning and still be liquid. Presumably you mean fixed
layout using absolute positioning.

> Absolute positioning is used on most big websites.

Which ones did you check, and by what criteria did you decide if they
counted as big? Or is that one of those made up claims convenient to
your argument? And do you mean fixed layout here?

> For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear when
> using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk

It's not very clear if your browser canvas is narrower than the page's
width - scrolling in both directions is required to see everything. It
also fell to bits in Internet Explorer 6.

It does degrade well with CSS disabled (apart from the slightly strange
double-link lists.) It's certainly perfectly clear that way, perhaps
just less visually appealing.

Mostly I quite like the design, but it's another of these sites that,
for me, crams too much information into every available space, as if
it's desirable to match newspaper layout on the web. I'd prefer more
white space and a design that gradually leads me from the most important
information to the finer details.

> Would anybody say that liquid layouts are always what is most desirable, and
> that when that they are not used it is due to the incompetence of the
> designer?

"Always" would be a bit strong, but liquid layouts are a major strength
of the web that most visual media just don't have. There could be
conceivably be situations where the requirements of a design outweigh
the benefits of a liquid layout and demand a fixed layout instead, but I
can't think of one right now. Outwith such situations, why remove the
ability to cater for wide-ranging user needs or preferences?

I've never seen the idea better expressed than by the late Alan J. Flavell:

"As if a tailor would make a suit to fit only one ideal customer,
rather than for the actual customers who want to buy one. *But* in
the case of the web, the web "tailor" only has to make one suit,
provided he knows how to make it so that it adapts /itself/ to the
client requirements."

Andrew

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 2008-01-21, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> "Synapse Syndrome"
> wrote:
>
>> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A2C8E8EB5DCCnanopandaneredbojias@194.177.96.78...
>> >
>> >> For example, I cannot see how The Guardian news site would be as clear
>> >> when using liquid layouts. www.guardian.co.uk
>> >
>> > Actually, the site is somewhat successfully liquid via javascript. This
>> > demonstrates that the site _could have_ been completely liquid had the
>> > creator been less inept.
>>
>> Inept? I'd have to disregard what else you've said in that case. That site
>> is often used as an example of good design in the UK. Could you find a
>> better designed news site? I really doubt it. Making that site with a
>> liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting problems to the people making
>> the content. It'd just be a mess.
>>
>
>
> OK lets look at a typical page:
>
>

You're right that is a typical page, and they've been like that for
years. They recently (a few months ago) redid the main front page and
some other bits, which is more likely to be what the OP is saying is an
example of good design.

> It uses a transitional doctype. Perhaps this is ok. Some people
> will wonder what it is transitioning from. But still it has lots
> of errors. I saw a count above 80.

It's awful. The way they've done those headings ("Home", "UK", etc.)
across the top is particularly horrific.

One table nested inside another, for no apparent reason, all in a center
element. The inner table is set to 'width="1"' so any heading with
spaces in it has them substituted with  .

Lots of missing tags and tags in the wrong places.

[...]
> Not saying the site is incompetent. It is not.

It's very old and perhaps some of the bizarre ways of doing things in
there are there because they were the only things that "worked" in those
days.

No excuse for the broken tag structure though.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"Nik Coughlin" wrote in message
news:fn33ic$589$1@aioe.org...
>> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
>> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.
>
> Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you don't
> really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be quite
> easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to the
> people generating the content.

Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting too
much? If it could easily be made liquid, why didn't they then? I /think/ I
understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there is much to
understand, is there?

> My belief that you don't understand is reinforced by your use of the term
> absolute positioning instead of fixed width. Absolute positioning means
> something quite different -- I use absolute positioning in my liquid
> layouts.

Yes, excuse me. I actually knew that, but as you suspect, I do not know
that much at this stage. I did mean fixed width, but I did not know that
you could use AP Divs with liquid layouts. My personal experience is
limited to centralised fixed width divs so far.

ss.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-F86145.08582122012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>
> OK lets look at a typical page:
>
>
>
> It uses a transitional doctype. Perhaps this is ok. Some people
> will wonder what it is transitioning from. But still it has lots
> of errors. I saw a count above 80.
>
> There are some css ones too. Perhaps these latter things are not
> that important and due to various hacks to ward off greater
> dangers...
>
> But there are some nasty looking things like body {font-size:
> small...} which do not auger well. It is not a good thing to
> start the day with. The authors actually admit (in a comment on
> body):
>
> "For most browsers we want to default to font-size small, but for
> IE 5 PC we want to use x-small, as it's font sizes are one size
> out"
>
> Now, I am not saying that a table layout is a terrible crime - it
> is not - but you cannot have a table layout like this site uses
> these days for non tabular material and trumpet too loudly its
> good design, much less hold it up as an example.
>
> Not saying the site is incompetent. It is not.

The basic template for that page is actually pretty old, and it was a while
ago that I saw the site being used as an example. It is the main front page
that has recently been redesigned (and made to fit a 1024 screen width, from
800).

ss.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article ,
"Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:

> I /think/ I
> understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there is much to
> understand, is there?

It depends. Most authors don't understand it. So the problem may
be finding this "not very much to understand" animal in the
jungle. Once caught, it might well be a grey thing that you are
severely disappointed with or are very impressed with. What did
you catch?

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article ,
"Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-F86145.08582122012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> >
> > OK lets look at a typical page:
> >
> >
> >

> The basic template for that page is actually pretty old, and it was a while
> ago that I saw the site being used as an example. It is the main front page
> that has recently been redesigned (and made to fit a 1024 screen width, from
> 800).


As Ben C surmised.

OK. The home page looks well. I have not really examined it but
here is just one comment to do with something you asked - liquid
design. I can understand a big site with lots of info not able to
be quite squeezed into 800 wide. But there is no reason for the
bits that do not need to be out of the picture to be out of the
picture.

Look at the search bar at top at 800px for browser and especially
(perhaps paradoxically enough) at very small user text size. Look
at all the room available to the left where it could happily go.
One needs to pause before holding the page up as an example of
good design.

But I admit, it is not all that bad!

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"Synapse Syndrome" wrote in message
news:nrmdnVOGxuckhwjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Nik Coughlin" wrote in message
> news:fn33ic$589$1@aioe.org...
>>> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
>>> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.
>>
>> Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you don't
>> really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be
>> quite easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to
>> the people generating the content.
>
> Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting
> too much? If it could easily be made liquid, why didn't they then? I
> /think/ I understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there
> is much to understand, is there?

http://nrkn.com/guardianFluid/

I didn't bother hacking it to work in IE 6 so use a real browser to view -
tested in IE 7, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Would work in IE 6 with another
10 minutes work which I have no intention of doing.

It's very rough and I've only bothered doing the two main content columns as
this is all that is required to show that it can be made fluid. Everything
else is low quality placeholder images.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Synapse Syndrome wrote:
> I would say that there is always a case for using absolute positioning on
> webpages rather than liquid layouts. Absolute positioning is used on most
> big websites.

You start by saying that there is always a case for X, but then all you
have to offer is "X is what most people do". I'm afraid your
understanding of what it means to make a case for something needs work.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 2008-01-22, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" wrote in message
> news:nrmdnVOGxuckhwjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Nik Coughlin" wrote in message
>> news:fn33ic$589$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
>>>> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.
>>>
>>> Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you don't
>>> really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be
>>> quite easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to
>>> the people generating the content.
>>
>> Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting
>> too much? If it could easily be made liquid, why didn't they then? I
>> /think/ I understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there
>> is much to understand, is there?
>
> http://nrkn.com/guardianFluid/
>
> I didn't bother hacking it to work in IE 6 so use a real browser to view -
> tested in IE 7, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Would work in IE 6 with another
> 10 minutes work which I have no intention of doing.
>
> It's very rough and I've only bothered doing the two main content columns as
> this is all that is required to show that it can be made fluid. Everything
> else is low quality placeholder images.

Looks good. You have a min-width of 942px, where the original site sets
a width of 940px and centres.

So on a very wide monitor, I can fill the width with your version. But
940px is already quite wide.

How would you make the page work at much narrower than 940px?

If you make the viewport 800px and look at either version, you notice
that everything still looks neatly laid out, just with no jobs or
dating. You lose an exact precisely-measured slice of gubbins.

I'm sure that's deliberate. I see it quite a lot on the web. This is
another trick to do the sort of thing salmobytes was discussing the
other day-- the discretely fluid compromise.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

"Ben C" wrote in message
news:slrnfpba2q.vlp.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> On 2008-01-22, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>
>> "Synapse Syndrome" wrote in
>> message
>> news:nrmdnVOGxuckhwjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> "Nik Coughlin" wrote in message
>>> news:fn33ic$589$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
>>>>> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.
>>>>
>>>> Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you
>>>> don't
>>>> really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be
>>>> quite easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to
>>>> the people generating the content.
>>>
>>> Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting
>>> too much? If it could easily be made liquid, why didn't they then? I
>>> /think/ I understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there
>>> is much to understand, is there?
>>
>> http://nrkn.com/guardianFluid/
>>
>> I didn't bother hacking it to work in IE 6 so use a real browser to
>> view -
>> tested in IE 7, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Would work in IE 6 with
>> another
>> 10 minutes work which I have no intention of doing.
>>
>> It's very rough and I've only bothered doing the two main content columns
>> as
>> this is all that is required to show that it can be made fluid.
>> Everything
>> else is low quality placeholder images.
>
> Looks good. You have a min-width of 942px, where the original site sets
> a width of 940px and centres.
>
> So on a very wide monitor, I can fill the width with your version. But
> 940px is already quite wide.
>
> How would you make the page work at much narrower than 940px?

Move the search box so it doesn't slide over/under the GuardianUnlimited
logo. Or make it so that it dropped under it when they collide.

Once you've done that then the minimum theoretical width is the width of the
images in column 1 + the width of the images in column 2 + the widths of
columns 3 and 4 which are fixed. That's if you don't want the columns
dropping under each other (use floats), if you don't mind that then the
minimum width is the largest image or fixed widht column you have on the
page.

> If you make the viewport 800px and look at either version, you notice
> that everything still looks neatly laid out, just with no jobs or
> dating. You lose an exact precisely-measured slice of gubbins.
>
> I'm sure that's deliberate. I see it quite a lot on the web. This is
> another trick to do the sort of thing salmobytes was discussing the
> other day-- the discretely fluid compromise.

Yeah, it's all a compromise. But man those tiny little fixed width sites
look silly on my giant monitor.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 21, 1:36 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:
> I would say that there is always a case for using absolute positioning on
> webpages rather than liquid layouts. Absolute positioning is used on most
> big websites.

Anyone that says "one size fits all" on the web is a fool. Fluid
design is great for some site, fluid design is dumb for others.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, "Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:
> Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting too
> much?

Sometimes the fluid crowd's view is like that old joke "Dr, it hurts
when I do this... "Don't do that"

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Scripsit Travis Newbury:

> Anyone that says "one size fits all" on the web is a fool. Fluid
> design is great for some site, fluid design is dumb for others.

You can't make up your mind, can you? Or maybe you just don't understand
"fluid design". In a nutshell, it's an approach that says that one size
does not fit all. Try googling for "fluid design".

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 22, 7:16 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
> You can't make up your mind, can you? Or maybe you just don't understand
> "fluid design". In a nutshell, it's an approach that says that one size
> does not fit all. Try googling for "fluid design".

No I completely understand fluid design, I just do not believe that it
is the way that ALL websites need to be created. I believe each site
is unique in the way that the content needs to be presented to obtain
the best results for the client. In some cased this is fluid, in
others it is fixed width, and in still others it is all Flash.

I try not to have a preconceived idea of what is best for a client
until after I find what they need and who their customers are.

I guess we disagree.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 3:13=A0am, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:16 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
>
> > You can't make up your mind, can you? Or maybe you just don't understand=

> > "fluid design". In a nutshell, it's an approach that says that one size
> > does not fit all. Try googling for "fluid design".
>
> No I completely understand fluid design, I just do not believe that it
> is the way that ALL websites need to be created. =A0I believe each site
> is unique in the way that the content needs to be presented to obtain
> the best results for the client. =A0In some cased this is fluid, in
> others it is fixed width, and in still others it is all Flash.
>
> I try not to have a preconceived =A0idea of what is best for a client
> until after I find what they need and who their customers are.
>
> I guess we disagree.
It really does depend on who the client is. As an example most of the
sites I design are information based sites.
But for entertainment based sites a more graphical based design works
better.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article <48llj.284681$nt5.145987@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:

> Scripsit Travis Newbury:
>
> > Anyone that says "one size fits all" on the web is a fool. Fluid
> > design is great for some site, fluid design is dumb for others.
>
> You can't make up your mind, can you? Or maybe you just don't understand
> "fluid design". In a nutshell, it's an approach that says that one size
> does not fit all. Try googling for "fluid design".

Plus, Travis, once you have decided for some reason that you are
going to fix the width of some box to contain your "site", that
does not mean you have to go on and do what could easily be
foolish and clueless things by fixing *everything* inside.

I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own,
everything according to its need. Are you quite sure you have not
been to the Dale Carnegie course on postmodernist relativist
thought, specializing in how to win friends in every school of
thought?

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 1:33 am, dorayme wrote:
> I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own

One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
can and can not do (should or should not)

Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Scripsit Chaddy2222:

> It really does depend on who the client is.

It depends on what you mean by "it". You didn't specify that.

> As an example most of the
> sites I design are information based sites.
> But for entertainment based sites a more graphical based design works
> better.

If "it" means the adequacy of fluid design, then it seems that you, too,
have missed the meaning of the concept. It is not the opposite of "more
graphical based design".

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 6:46 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
> If "it" means the adequacy of fluid design, then it seems that you, too,
> have missed the meaning of the concept. It is not the opposite of "more
> graphical based design".

Jukka,

Is there any reason you could think of that a site would be better off
if they did not use flexible design?

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 22 Jan, 16:13, Travis Newbury wrote:

> No I completely understand fluid design, I just do not believe that it
> is the way that ALL websites need to be created.

Certainly not. Fluid design is only needed when you don't know the
size of the window relative to the display, the pixel and the readable
font size. Provided you know all these beforehand, there's no need to
be fluid at all.

If you don't know these, then your page _needs_ to be fluid. Maybe
you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design, so you might decide
to present one _box_ on this page (maybe a large box) and maintain non-
fluid behaviour within this box of known size and constrained
behaviours -- but you still need to be fluid _outside_ this box,
because you just can't control or predict the capabilities of the
device that is going to come to visit your site.

So if you're buiiding rigid intranet apps for kiosk terminals within a
controlled building (maybe museum info-points), then perhaps you
really don't need to worry about fluid design of overall pages. Except
of course when you have to maintain the things, and a year later you
install some with bigger displays and more, but smaller, pixels. Or
you need to worry about accessibility issues and text sizes.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 7:13 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design

And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
design.

But then so are my clients and their customers so I guess in the end
it is working out pretty well for everyone.

If you give the customer what they WANT they will return, if you try
to force feed them what you think they NEED you will lose.

But this argument is dumb and we have been down this road a billion
times. We disagree, oh well life goes on...

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 23 Jan, 12:31, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:13 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design
>
> And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
> understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
> different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
> design.

That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
made out of printed paper"

> But then so are my clients and their customers

They they're still wrong.

I understand your point here - I've worked in big ad agencies, and in
magazine publishers. Both did terrible web design, because what they
most wanted above all was a glossy magazine page that looked like an
advert. Both thought that ghastly sliced-image web pages designed as
PSDs were the right thing to deliver.

One had end-user customers who hated the sites, the other simply had
no end-user customers. The magazine publisher learned (over several
years) and fixed many problems. The ad agency was insulated from
reality because their immediate customers (big brands) didn't know any
better either and didn't realise that there were no end-users. Finally
they simply went bust (at least the web division of a huge
conglomerate).

> If you give the customer what they WANT they will return,

Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
won't, because the sites suck.

> if you try
> to force feed them what you think they NEED you will lose.

You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to. IMHE, they
learned very slowly and finally got a clue about a year after I'd
left.

Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 2:06=A0am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 23 Jan, 12:31, Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 7:13 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > > you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design
>
> > And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
> > understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
> > different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
> > design.
>
> That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
> made out of printed paper"
>
> > But then so are my clients and their customers
>
> They they're still wrong.
>
> I understand your point here - I've worked in big ad agencies, and in
> magazine publishers. Both did terrible web design, because what they
> most wanted above all was a glossy magazine page that looked like an
> advert. Both thought that ghastly sliced-image web pages designed as
> PSDs were the right thing to deliver.
>
> One had end-user customers who hated the sites, the other simply had
> no end-user customers. The magazine publisher learned (over several
> years) and fixed many problems. The ad agency was insulated from
> reality because their immediate customers (big brands) didn't know any
> better either and didn't realise that there were no end-users. Finally
> they simply went bust (at least the web division of a huge
> conglomerate).
>
> > If you give the customer what they WANT they will return,
>
> Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
> won't, because the sites suck.
>
> > if you try
> > to force feed them what you think they NEED you will lose.
>
> You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to. IMHE, they
> learned very slowly and finally got a clue about a year after I'd
> left.
>
> Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
> you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!

Umm Andy Trav works for the entertainment industry (mainly sites such
as:
http://www.snoopdogg.com/
Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 10:06 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
> made out of printed paper"

I understood that. And Pixel perfect design does make that
assumption.

> > But then so are my clients and their customers
> They they're still wrong.

No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all. They are no
more wrong than you are. People have preferences and they tend to
gravitate towards those preferences. That is like saying people that
like the color blue are wrong.

> > If you give the customer what they WANT they will return,
> Until they go bust. They might return, their end-user web browsers
> won't, because the sites suck.

They suck to "you" not to everyone. You are assuming that if they do
not follow your flexible width design they will fail. That is a
completely invalid assumption.

> You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to.

You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.

> Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
> you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!

Or they could kick you out the door... Sorry Andy, we disagree on
this. And you know what? Flexible websites will never take over the
web, and neither will fixed width. They will always both exist
because people like different things. And I can live with that. Can
you?

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:18:39 GMT
Chaddy2222 scribed:

>> You might. You might convince them, or you might fail to. IMHE, they
>> learned very slowly and finally got a clue about a year after I'd
>> left.
>>
>> Or they might throw you out through the door, in which case at least
>> you're not working for circle.com any more. Win, win, win!
>
> Umm Andy Trav works for the entertainment industry (mainly sites such
> as:
> http://www.snoopdogg.com/
> Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.

Is that because of his attitude toward actual web page authoring or perhaps
something like a generally inflexible personality?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:01:08 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

> On Jan 23, 1:33 am, dorayme wrote:
>> I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own
>
> One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
> can and can not do (should or should not)
>
> Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
> Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
> foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
> already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.

Hmm, you may not be engendering any empathy here. I think dorayme's mantra
left for greener pastures la la.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 11:22 am, Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:01:08 GMT
> Travis Newbury scribed:
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:33 am, dorayme wrote:
> >> I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own
>
> > One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
> > can and can not do (should or should not)
>
> > Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
> > Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
> > foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
> > already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.
>
> Hmm, you may not be engendering any empathy here. I think dorayme's mantra
> left for greener pastures la la.


I am dorayme's mantra!

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 11:19 am, Neredbojias wrote:
> >http://www.snoopdogg.com/
> > Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.
> Is that because of his attitude toward actual web page authoring or perhaps
> something like a generally inflexible personality?

That is because that is all they contracted me to do.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 23 Jan, 15:23, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:06 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
> > made out of printed paper"
>
> I understood that. And Pixel perfect design does make that
> assumption.
>
> > > But then so are my clients and their customers
> > They they're still wrong.
>
> No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all.

If they disagree with me by continuing to think that, "the web is made
out of printed paper" then they _are_ wrong! You might just as well
say that the Internet is a series of tubes.


> People have preferences and they tend to gravitate towards those preferences.

Of course. To recycle some trite slogan from McCola or whoever it was,
"Your burger, your way". Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
prevents choice.

In no way am I suggesting that good web design is about grey
backgrounds, HTML 2 and ugly design.



> You are assuming that if they do not follow your flexible
> width design they will fail.

Of course not. It's a big problem, that's just one part of it. But if
you throw a fixed-pixel design out at a market that can't make use of
it, then they'll ignore it.

Does bad usability hurt a site? Well you've probably heard of eBay,
and unless you're an old UK web-hack, I doubt you've heard of QXL. Yet
QXL (in their prime) were the one that had the big UK ad-spend, and
the better brand recognition in the UK. Lousy site though, and they
died as a result.


> You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.

As a contractor I can't really fail. I simply work on one site, or a
different site. Like doctors, contractors simply bury their mistakes
and move on! 8-)


You specialise in graphically intensive site based around video
playback, and with a strong graphic content to the "framing" of this
video too. That's certainly the sweet spot for Flash and fixed-pixel
design. I doubt if fluid design has anything to offer you here, when
the only purpose of the "page" is to be the border around a video
streamer that's already fixed to one size. TV doesn't get any better
if you watch it on a Bang & Olufsen than an a Matsui.

At the same time though, we're building _sites_ here, not just pages.
What use is it if the "Watch footage of Snoop Dogg's last concert"
page is safely fixed-pixel bbut also the pure-text "Dates for the next
tour" page is too? For band / gig sites in particular, I do a lot of
my access from weirdly sized mobile devices. I'm checking ticket
availability, I'm signing up for the ticket lottery, I'm checking if
the delayed gig is actually goign to go ahead tonight whilst I'm
driving there.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 23 Jan, 12:31, Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 7:13 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>>
>>> you're obsessed with pixel-perfect image design
>> And by "obsessed with pixel-perfect image design" you mean
>> understanding that maybe, just maybe, different things apeal to
>> different people then you are right, I am obsessed with pixle perfect
>> design.
>
> That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
> made out of printed paper"
>

I will give an example of the problem of fixed width design and the web
as a non-canvas dimension specific media. How may of you had the
"pleasure" of finding so information on the web and wished to have a
hard copy of it. But because the "designer" designed for a preconceived
canvas dimensions, you print out the page only to find you are missing
the entire right-hand strip of the content! Okay so you zero out all
your printing margins and DAMN still missing some of the right. So now
you select "fit content to page" and you are successful in getting all
the content but it it too damn small to read! Okay so you force
landscape and get what you wish... Have had a number of flash sites with
this "feature".

With a true liquid layout, the canvas dimension does not matter, so
where the client is viewing or printing they can get the information
with the flexibility of font size, style, and print-out size.

Confessions folks, how many of you have had to copy and paste part of a
badly designed webpage into a temp document in order to get a decent
print out?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 12:19 pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
> > No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all.
> If they disagree with me by continuing to think that, "the web is made
> out of printed paper" then they _are_ wrong! You might just as well
> say that the Internet is a series of tubes.

The only thing anyone is disagreeing on is whether or not flexible
width is the only "correct" way to build a website. And we just have
different opinions on that.

>
> > People have preferences and they tend to gravitate towards those preferences.
>
> Of course. To recycle some trite slogan from McCola or whoever it was,
> "Your burger, your way". Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
> design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
> prevents choice.

Choice of what? Font size? window size? Who cares. As a developer
of a website I may not want to give you that choice. You may say
that is the problem, I would say that is the solution to a problem.

> In no way am I suggesting that good web design is about grey
> backgrounds, HTML 2 and ugly design.

Neither am I

> > You are assuming that if they do not follow your flexible
> > width design they will fail.
>
> Of course not. It's a big problem, that's just one part of it. But if
> you throw a fixed-pixel design out at a market that can't make use of
> it, then they'll ignore it.

There is the key, you assume they can't, but in the real world
virtually all do see it exactly the way that the designers planned. I
can not think of a commercial website that is fixed width that does
not function on everyone's browser. Can you? Show me an example.

So what if you have to resize your window. I have to resize mine when
I get to a flexible width site because they tend to look like crap at
the resolution and window size I use.

Fixed width or flexible is a preference. It is a preference with the
visitor, as well as the owner.

> Does bad usability hurt a site? Well you've probably heard of eBay,
> and unless you're an old UK web-hack, I doubt you've heard of QXL. Yet
> QXL (in their prime) were the one that had the big UK ad-spend, and
> the better brand recognition in the UK. Lousy site though, and they
> died as a result.

So they had a lousy site. How do you link that with fixed width.
There are so many more things that could have driven people away.


> > You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.
>
> As a contractor I can't really fail. I simply work on one site, or a
> different site. Like doctors, contractors simply bury their mistakes
> and move on! 8-)

I am the same, but with entertainment and sports sites.


> You specialise in graphically intensive site based around video
> playback, and with a strong graphic content to the "framing" of this
> video too. That's certainly the sweet spot for Flash and fixed-pixel
> design. I doubt if fluid design has anything to offer you here, when
> the only purpose of the "page" is to be the border around a video
> streamer that's already fixed to one size. TV doesn't get any better
> if you watch it on a Bang & Olufsen than an a Matsui.

Bingo! And do you know how many entertainment sites there are? And
have you not heard me say that what I do for entertainment sites does
NOT always work with other kinds of sites? And your impression of
video seems to be a box like a TV. My video interacts with the page.
Many times you can not tell where the video ends and the site begins
(thank you alpha channel)

> At the same time though, we're building _sites_ here, not just pages.

My designs are not always just pages.

> What use is it if the "Watch footage of Snoop Dogg's last concert"
> page is safely fixed-pixel bbut also the pure-text "Dates for the next
> tour" page is too? For band / gig sites in particular, I do a lot of
> my access from weirdly sized mobile devices. I'm checking ticket
> availability, I'm signing up for the ticket lottery, I'm checking if
> the delayed gig is actually goign to go ahead tonight whilst I'm
> driving there.

The site is not meant for your pda or phone. It "could have been" but
it's not. Snoop said "hmmm, we can either have the site designed the
way my fans want it, or we can create one that is usable by a cell
phone" (and yes, in this case they two are mutually exclusive) They
chose to pleases the masses rather than the few.

Look, I am not saying that fixed width is better or worse. I am
saying that only a fool discounts a viable option before they look at
the whole picture.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article
<3732e1c4-42f5-4104-82bb-b21b4356c4dd@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.co
m>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 23, 1:33 am, dorayme wrote:
> > I know Travis, it is horses for courses, each to his own
>
> One tends to close doors when they start putting limits on what they
> can and can not do (should or should not)
>
> Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
> Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
> foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But you
> already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.

Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
sun, its lightning...

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 12:57 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> I will give an example of the problem of fixed width design and the web
> as a non-canvas dimension specific media. How may of you had the
> "pleasure" of finding so information on the web and wished to have a
> hard copy of it. But because the "designer" designed for a preconceived
> canvas dimensions, you print out the page only to find you are missing
> the entire right-hand strip of the content!

I have, all the time on msdn

> Okay so you...

We could continue to create scenarios all day long... What if this,
what if that...

This kind of brings up the point I have been trying to make. Nothing
you put out there will ever please 100% of the sites visitors.
NOTHING, not fixed width not flexible, not Flash, not "fill in the
blank here". You will never achieve a website that every single
person that goes to that site says "Damn, this site is perfect in
every way!"

Sometimes the MAJORITY of your visitors are happier with flexible,
sometimes with fixed, sometimes with Flash, sometime with Javascript
menus, sometimes with nothing but text. The "keys" (notice the "s")
to the success of a website is a balance of content that is important
to your visitor, and a presentation of that content that is also
enjoyable to the visitor.

If you do not have that balance you will fail every time. The visitor
has to want the information you have, and they have to be able to
receive that information in a manner that pleases them. And stating
that everyone or even the majority prefer flexible websites is just
not true.

I would even suggest that most people never even give it a though
either way.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 3:23 pm, dorayme wrote:
> Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
> sun, its lightning...

But not in the biblical sense...

yet....

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:28:28
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:

> On Jan 23, 11:19 am, Neredbojias wrote:
>> >http://www.snoopdogg.com/
>> > Oh and he does the video players not the actual web authoring!.
>> Is that because of his attitude toward actual web page authoring or
>> perhaps something like a generally inflexible personality?
>
> That is because that is all they contracted me to do.

Just pullin' yor leg. Business-wise, no argument stands up to your own.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:26:44
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:

>> > Deciding that the only way a website should be designed is with
>> > Flexible width before you know the client and the customer is
>> > foolish. THAT is what I mean with one size does NOT fit all. But
>> > you already know that dorayme, it has been my mantra for years now.
>>
>> Hmm, you may not be engendering any empathy here. I think dorayme's
>> mantra left for greener pastures la la.
>
>
> I am dorayme's mantra!

Caution! It's whispered nocturnally that dodo is the marsupial equivalent
of the arachnid black widow. So watch your bod.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 12:57 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>> I will give an example of the problem of fixed width design and the web
>> as a non-canvas dimension specific media. How may of you had the
>> "pleasure" of finding so information on the web and wished to have a
>> hard copy of it. But because the "designer" designed for a preconceived
>> canvas dimensions, you print out the page only to find you are missing
>> the entire right-hand strip of the content!
>
> I have, all the time on msdn
>
>> Okay so you...
>
> We could continue to create scenarios all day long... What if this,
> what if that...
>
> This kind of brings up the point I have been trying to make. Nothing
> you put out there will ever please 100% of the sites visitors.
> NOTHING, not fixed width not flexible, not Flash, not "fill in the
> blank here". You will never achieve a website that every single
> person that goes to that site says "Damn, this site is perfect in
> every way!"

Not what I am saying. What I am saying is if you approach the design
embracing the main attribute of the web: "that it is fluid and you never
no what your canvas dimensions will be", that your design will be more
suitable to the medium. Just because so many designs out there deny this
basic attibute of the web does not validate the fixed, ridged designs.
And as access to the web continues to expand to more and more types
devices this principle will be paramount.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article
m>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 23, 10:06 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> > That's not what I mean -- what I mean is "Thinking that the web is
> > made out of printed paper"
>
> I understood that. And Pixel perfect design does make that
> assumption.
>
> > > But then so are my clients and their customers
> > They they're still wrong.
>
> No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all. They are no
> more wrong than you are. People have preferences and they tend to
> gravitate towards those preferences. That is like saying people that
> like the color blue are wrong.

Neatly skirting around the point that giving the clients exactly
what they want is aiding and abetting their eventual failure in
some cases. You never seem seem to recognise the responsibility
of a good author to put up a damned fight for what might be a
good thing. You are too ready to encourage authors to do whatever
the customer wants and you think all these ditties about the
world being full of choices equally good (I like blue, he likes
pink) is going to help justify this. Well, it is not going to
help.

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 5:21 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
> > That is because that is all they contracted me to do.
> Just pullin' yor leg. Business-wise, no argument stands up to your own.

I knew that, all and all,the regulars respect each other here even if
we disagree. (give or take a few jabs every now and then)

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 5:45 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> Not what I am saying. What I am saying is if you approach the design
> embracing the main attribute of the web: "that it is fluid and you never
> no what your canvas dimensions will be", that your design will be more
> suitable to the medium.

And I agree with that, except when it doesn't apply.... ;-)

(There dorayme, add that you your favorite Travis saying...)

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article
m>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 23, 11:22 am, Neredbojias wrote:

> > I think dorayme's mantra
> > left for greener pastures la la.
>
>
> I am dorayme's mantra!

Bullshit. I harp on different things as the mood takes me. It is
just that I keep an eye out for you. You and Boji are my two
special chickens...

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 6:28 pm, dorayme wrote:
> Neatly skirting around the point that giving the clients exactly
> what they want is aiding and abetting their eventual failure in
> some cases. You never seem seem to recognise the responsibility
> of a good author to put up a damned fight for what might be a
> good thing.

And one sign of a good author is to not decide on how the site will be
designed before you learn who the target audience is, and what the
owner wants to present.


> You are too ready to encourage authors to do whatever
> the customer wants and you think all these ditties about the
> world being full of choices equally good (I like blue, he likes
> pink) is going to help justify this. Well, it is not going to
> help.

That is not what I meant at all. Sorry if that is what came across.
A good author will not burn any bridges before they know which one
they want to cross. What irritate me are those that say the word
"never do this..."

I believe we should never say never, we should always look at the
entire picture first.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 6:32 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > I am dorayme's mantra!
> You and Boji are my two
> special chickens...


Mmmmm chicken

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:45 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>> Not what I am saying. What I am saying is if you approach the design
>> embracing the main attribute of the web: "that it is fluid and you never
>> no what your canvas dimensions will be", that your design will be more
>> suitable to the medium.
>
> And I agree with that, except when it doesn't apply.... ;-)
>
> (There dorayme, add that you your favorite Travis saying...)
>

You can continue to be silly but it does not change the reality of the
medium.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:29:12 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

> On Jan 23, 5:21 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
>> > That is because that is all they contracted me to do.
>> Just pullin' yor leg. Business-wise, no argument stands up to your own.
>
> I knew that, all and all,the regulars respect each other here even if
> we disagree. (give or take a few jabs every now and then)

Actually, regarding the fixed vs. fluid discussion, I think it's more than
a little like comparing oranges and apples. I personally believe that a
home/opening site page should be fluid, really fluid, but pages linked from
that for video, etc., can be totally fixed and available to those who want
and can use them. Naturally, it would be nice to have fluid alternates
available, also, but if you're designing/engineering for the state-of-the-
art hardware crowd, that might not be feasible and should not limit one's
option to offer a more "robust" (if rather proprietary) medium.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 23 Jan, 17:57, "Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

> Confessions folks, how many of you have had to copy and paste part of a
> badly designed webpage into a temp document in order to get a decent
> print out?



which leads (eventually) to



So far this week I've converted it to Word (so that I could print it),
then to Excel (so that I could enter an order). I'll quite possibly
convert it back to decent HTML and give it to the site owner for free
- maybe I'll score a free plank as a result.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 23, 9:19 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> > And I agree with that, except when it doesn't apply.... ;-)
> > (There dorayme, add that you your favorite Travis saying...)
> You can continue to be silly but it does not change the reality of the
> medium.


Nor does it change the fact that we disagree on how you can use that
medium.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 6:04 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>

So you found a site where the author was inept at creating webpages.
This is NOT a difficult task on the web...

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 23 Jan, 20:23, dorayme wrote:

> Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
> sun, its lightning...

So just what _is_ the airspeed of a Travis, fully laden with coconuts?

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 23 Jan, 19:29, Travis Newbury wrote:
> > Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
> > design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
> > prevents choice.
>
> Choice of what? Font size? window size? Who cares. As a developer
> of a website I may not want to give you that choice.

As a designer, you might well _wish_ to not give me that choice.
However in the real world, you simply don't have the option. The
number of pixels I have, the size of those pixels, and the number I
need to use to see anything with are all user-specific, variable and
beyond the control of any developer.

Fluid design accepts this. It tries to work with it. It's not about
saying that "a fluid design is better", it's about saying that "a
fluid implementation suffers less from an unavoidable, variable
constraint imposed by the user".

Fixed pixel design has a long track record of looking gorgeous on the
developer's own screen, looking great in the pitch meeting, then truly
sucking when it hits the final user who has some different equipment.
So what are you going to do to your users in this situation? Turn
them away? (BTDT, seen the business fail as a result).

What are you going to do in a few years time? Is your 320 pixel wide
video still going to look so good on the 1080p widescreen TV home
infotainerizer? Maybe your Snoop Doggery just doesn't care, because
its business model accepts that yesterday just isn't profitable. For
most of us though, we want to build sites that remain usable through
hardware growth and last for a longer timescale.


Would you favour a banner that says "This site best viewed with
Netscape 4" and refuses to serve content otherwise? That's really not
too far from fixed-pixel design.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 24 Jan, 11:56, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:04 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> >
>
> So you found a site where the author was inept at creating webpages.

By your rules though, this is a better site than a fluid design site -
because it meets the author's original artistic concept, which was to
make everything a particular number of pixels wide, come what may.

....And to make many of them bright purple.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 11:12=A0pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 24 Jan, 11:56, Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 6:04 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > So you found a site where the author was inept at creating webpages.
>
> By your rules though, this is a better site than a fluid design site -
> because it meets the author's original artistic concept, which was to
> make everything a particular number of pixels wide, come what may.
>
> ...And to make many of them bright purple.

I am not really sure that you know what Travis is on about.
As an example check out:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/flash-ing.html
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:19 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>>> And I agree with that, except when it doesn't apply.... ;-)
>>> (There dorayme, add that you your favorite Travis saying...)
>> You can continue to be silly but it does not change the reality of the
>> medium.
>
>
> Nor does it change the fact that we disagree on how you can use that
> medium.

True. And we definitely disagree. I say this however, you can *choose*
to design with a fixed canvas point of reference but in no way will your
choice ever impose that paradigm to web as it exists. You cannot cannot
control the viewport of those who will access your site in a medium
where the canvas dimensions are not static. So I would say that
regardless of what you like, or even what your clients like, it is very
hard to make the case that a fixed dimensioned design is better suited
in a medium where the visitor's viewport is unknown. If the viewport is
small then the page must be scrolled about like though a peephole, or
when viewed widescreen it will be an island lost in an empty sea. As
opposed to a design that adjusts to confines of the viewport.

But then again, it took time for actors, writers, producers, and
advertisers, et al., time to realize that TV is not just radio with
pictures. For a time they tried to approach TV that way and resisted
change, but ultimately they had to change or fail. The same will happen
with this media.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 23 Jan, 20:23, dorayme wrote:
>
>> Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
>> sun, its lightning...
>
> So just what _is_ the airspeed of a Travis, fully laden with coconuts?

Is that an African Travis or an English Travis?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 23 Jan, 19:29, Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
>>> design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
>>> prevents choice.
>> Choice of what? Font size? window size? Who cares. As a developer
>> of a website I may not want to give you that choice.
>
> As a designer, you might well _wish_ to not give me that choice.
> However in the real world, you simply don't have the option. The
> number of pixels I have, the size of those pixels, and the number I
> need to use to see anything with are all user-specific, variable and
> beyond the control of any developer.
>
> Fluid design accepts this. It tries to work with it. It's not about
> saying that "a fluid design is better", it's about saying that "a
> fluid implementation suffers less from an unavoidable, variable
> constraint imposed by the user".

Bingo! Well put!

>
> Fixed pixel design has a long track record of looking gorgeous on the
> developer's own screen, looking great in the pitch meeting, then truly
> sucking when it hits the final user who has some different equipment.
> So what are you going to do to your users in this situation? Turn
> them away? (BTDT, seen the business fail as a result).

No, you could have an army of assistants that will roam the world and
for anyone that accesses the site without the prescribed dimensioned
viewport on their device they would get the "V8-slap-in-the-head" and a
laptop with the "correctly" dimensioned screen. Hmmm, how about to make
things easier the laptops will only have IE on them!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On 24 Jan, 15:31, "Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

> > Fixed pixel design has a long track record of looking gorgeous on the
> > developer's own screen, looking great in the pitch meeting, then truly
> > sucking when it hits the final user who has some different equipment.
> > So what are you going to do to your users in this situation? Turn
> > them away? (BTDT, seen the business fail as a result).
>
> No, you could have an army of assistants that will roam the world and
> for anyone that accesses the site without the prescribed dimensioned
> viewport on their device they would get the "V8-slap-in-the-head" and a
> laptop with the "correctly" dimensioned screen. Hmmm, how about to make
> things easier the laptops will only have IE on them!

I did _literally_ work on that site. It was the "owner's club" site
for T*sh*b* laptops, circa 2000. We "knew" what the screen size was,
because we knew the product line. We "knew" the browser (IE4) because
we knew what shipped on the default install.

It was the worst site I've ever worked on, built by the most clueless
web design company I've ever worked for. The finished site was a
disaster. Accordingly no-one used it. Even shipping out hardware pre-
wired to go straight to the site, it didn't generate traffic. Even
giving away freebie discounts to popular web retailers, it didn't
generate traffic. It couldn't have been more of a turkey if you'd
roasted it and shoved cranberries up it.

It also had the most inappropriate use of Flash for core navigation
that I've ever seen too.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 7:08 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> Would you favour a banner that says "This site best viewed with
> Netscape 4" and refuses to serve content otherwise? That's really not
> too far from fixed-pixel design.

Actually I think it is quite a distance from the same thing, but you
can say I am wrong all day long, but the fact is in the real world
fixed width has a home on the internet. No matter if you like it or
not.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 10:10 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> >> You can continue to be silly but it does not change the reality of the
> >> medium.
> > Nor does it change the fact that we disagree on how you can use that
> > medium.
> True. And we definitely disagree. I say this however, you can *choose*
> to design with a fixed canvas point of reference but in no way will your
> choice ever impose that paradigm to web as it exists.

Fixed width websites are a part of the internet and will continue to
be a part of the internet. No matter what is said in this group.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 7:12 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> > >
> > So you found a site where the author was inept at creating webpages.
> By your rules though, this is a better site than a fluid design site -
> because it meets the author's original artistic concept, which was to
> make everything a particular number of pixels wide, come what may.

Please find a quote where I say that Fixed width is better. I have
repeatedly stated that the decision of using fixed width or flexible
was based on what is best for the particular website. I have NEVER
stated that one is better than the other. I have stated that I prefer
fixed width when I browse.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> I personally believe that a
> home/opening site page should be fluid, really fluid

How personal? Do you have any beliefs that are not particularly
personal? Really fluid? Surely it is not ok for home pages to
leak onto the carpet?

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Andy Dingley wrote:

> It was the worst site I've ever worked on, built by the most clueless
> web design company I've ever worked for. The finished site was a
> disaster. Accordingly no-one used it. Even shipping out hardware pre-
> wired to go straight to the site, it didn't generate traffic. Even
> giving away freebie discounts to popular web retailers, it didn't
> generate traffic. It couldn't have been more of a turkey if you'd
> roasted it and shoved cranberries up it.

LOL! Precious! I'm going to giggle over that one all day.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article
>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 24 Jan, 11:56, Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 6:04 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > So you found a site where the author was inept at creating webpages.
>
> By your rules though, this is a better site than a fluid design site -
> because it meets the author's original artistic concept, which was to
> make everything a particular number of pixels wide, come what may.
>

I don't think this quite fair. You see, Travis does not have
rules - unless you count the rule that anything goes. Nothing is
a simple matter except the bottom line: short-term buckaroos from
'them' to 'me'.

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article ,
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On 23 Jan, 20:23, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >> Travis, I know you like the eagle knows the sky; its clouds, its
> >> sun, its lightning...
> >
> > So just what _is_ the airspeed of a Travis, fully laden with coconuts?
>
> Is that an African Travis or an English Travis?

Well, it sure ain't an African one. They know better than to fly
with whole coconuts.

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:10 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>>>> You can continue to be silly but it does not change the reality of the
>>>> medium.
>>> Nor does it change the fact that we disagree on how you can use that
>>> medium.
>> True. And we definitely disagree. I say this however, you can *choose*
>> to design with a fixed canvas point of reference but in no way will your
>> choice ever impose that paradigm to web as it exists.
>
> Fixed width websites are a part of the internet and will continue to
> be a part of the internet. No matter what is said in this group.

You snipped my argument, sure they will persist because there will
always be those who will continue to ignore what is before them...


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:25:14 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> I personally believe that a
>> home/opening site page should be fluid, really fluid
>
> How personal? Do you have any beliefs that are not particularly
> personal?

I believe in space, matter, and the 4 secondary forces. That's not too
personal.

> Really fluid? Surely it is not ok for home pages to
> leak onto the carpet?

For an example, columns should stack in a multi-column layout when page
width shrinks even if someone diddles around with them for such trivial
reasons as height-matching.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:41:07 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:

>LOL! Precious! I'm going to giggle over that one all day.

Try searching the archives for its "Whack-A-Mole" Flash navigation too.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:41:07 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>
>> LOL! Precious! I'm going to giggle over that one all day.
>
> Try searching the archives for its "Whack-A-Mole" Flash navigation too.

Awww they changed it! sit4less.com use to have this shooting gallery
navigation system. Chairs would whiz by either right or left and you had
to snag one with your mouse for it to pop open with a larger image and
details! After as while if you did not get to frustrated you would come
to realize that the whizzing will slow if you move your mouse toward the
center of the page.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 2:56 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> > Fixed width websites are a part of the internet and will continue to
> > be a part of the internet. No matter what is said in this group.
> You snipped my argument, sure they will persist because there will
> always be those who will continue to ignore what is before them...

You think they will be around forever because some developers are
inept. I think they will be around for ever because some people like
them.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 24, 2:51 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > By your rules though, this is a better site than a fluid design site -
> > because it meets the author's original artistic concept, which was to
> > make everything a particular number of pixels wide, come what may.
> I don't think this quite fair. You see, Travis does not have
> rules - unless you count the rule that anything goes. Nothing is
> a simple matter except the bottom line: short-term buckaroos from
> 'them' to 'me'.

I absolutely believe that anything goes on the web. I believe there
should be no rules, only guidelines.

I, as a web developer should be free to create my site anyway I like
with no regard to popular style, accessibility, or usability. And my
site will reap the rewards of what I have sown. But, if my shitty
designed, unusable website brings me more clients, visitors, and
business, then, then I should not be chastised for it. A perfect
example is my son's site. We went all Flash and visitors, customers,
and profits went up. So HOW in the world can someone say that what we
did was wrong?

And "buckaroos" are all that matter in business.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2:56 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>>> Fixed width websites are a part of the internet and will continue to
>>> be a part of the internet. No matter what is said in this group.
>> You snipped my argument, sure they will persist because there will
>> always be those who will continue to ignore what is before them...
>
> You think they will be around forever because some developers are
> inept. I think they will be around for ever because some people like
> them.
>

Well you said the word "inept", after reviewing last years crop on

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

and noting the lack of progress and some of the big names
involved...yeah "inept" fits.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Also note the percentage of Flash sites that get the award! Not hat you
need to use Flash to make bad sites, it just that Flash is so "good" at
making bad sites!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

In article
<32396d49-1ba4-42d8-814d-3fc1e2338f41@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 24, 2:51 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > You see, Travis does not have
> > rules - unless you count the rule that anything goes. Nothing is
> > a simple matter except the bottom line: short-term buckaroos from
> > 'them' to 'me'.
>
> I absolutely believe that anything goes on the web. I believe there
> should be no rules, only guidelines.

When you want to bend normally good rules or go against
intelligent standards, you call them guidelines. There is no need
for this doublespeak. We all know what a rebel you are!

> And "buckaroos" are all that matter in business.

Some deals can leave a sour taste in the mouth.

--
dorayme

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 25, 12:25 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Look it's not that I don't think things you say are good for the web.
It's just that I don't believe one should be told they HAVE to do it
that way. If I want to make a inflexible unusable website, then I
don't need someone telling me I am wrong. ESPECIALLY if this
"horrible" website increased activity and profits.

You will never convince me that it is better to have a website that
follows all the rules, but makes less money is better than one that
breaks all the rules and makes money.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 25, 12:27 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> Also note the percentage of Flash sites that get the award!

So what? Did anyone ask these horrible website how they are doing?
Has anyone asked them if their visitors like the websites? Probably
not. What you have is some "usability" expert visiting sites and
telling us what THEY think is wrong with no regard to how profitable
that site is to the owner.

Sorry, examples from webpagesthatsuck are meaningless information
unless you speak to the owners of the sites and see if they are
profitable or not, and how their typical customers feel about the
site.

As anecdotal data I stand by my son's site. As soon as we went all
flash, traffic and profits both improved. Typical? Who knows, but
based on the work I get I would say yes. It is typical. At least in
the entertainment industry.

So keep telling me how much our sites sucks as my customers and I cry
about it all the way to the bank. And yes. In business it IS all
about money.

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 25, 1:23 pm, dorayme wrote:
> We all know what a rebel you are!

Yea,that's me... Mr. Rebel... (0Lo)

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> I think they will be around for ever because some people like them.

Who might that be, the person who owns the site or those visiting it?

From the user standpoint, it's not always so simple as like/dislike.
There are an awful lot of people out there that have learned to tolerate
sites that don't adapt to their particular browsing situation.

I hear complaints over and over from disgruntled users about microfonts
and such on many of the sites they visit. They don't like it, but think
there isn't anything they can do about it, so settle for a less than
perfect experience. YMMV, of course.

BTW, I sort of agree that one design philosophy does not fit all, but as
a general rule, fluid is way better than fixed.

--
Berg

Re: Liquid Layouts not always appropriate ?

On Jan 25, 5:30 pm, Bergamot wrote:
> > I think they will be around for ever because some people like them.
> Who might that be, the person who owns the site or those visiting it?

Visitors.

> From the user standpoint, it's not always so simple as like/dislike.
> There are an awful lot of people out there that have learned to tolerate
> sites that don't adapt to their particular browsing situation.

If what you do is more profitable than what you did, then what you are
doing is a good thing.


> I hear complaints over and over from disgruntled users about microfonts
> and such on many of the sites they visit. They don't like it, but think
> there isn't anything they can do about it, so settle for a less than
> perfect experience. YMMV, of course.
> BTW, I sort of agree that one design philosophy does not fit all, but as
> a general rule, fluid is way better than fixed.

And I do not disagree with that. I disagree with someone saying it is
the ONLY way to great a good website.