Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
Date: 2004-11-22 17:19:21
Message-ID: 41A21F99.70607@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: 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 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL


Attachment: jd.vcf
Description: text/x-vcard (285 bytes)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-11-22 17:45:16
Subject: Re: Counting clicks, Download page?
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-11-22 16:28:22
Subject: Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group