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: (view raw or whole 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 
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 or, for 
>sites that scale very well over several hundread pixel differences in browser 
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 Aesthetically speaking, it looks great on both small 
>and large browser sizes.   
Well actually looks horrible in general but I get your point.

O.k. I have a question, it sounds like everyone is arguing about different

Are we arguing that the website should be fixed-width as in:

A. I am 1024x768 I will not resize PERIOD.


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.


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 -
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

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

In response to


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group