The fixed to liquid toggle needs to die
Have you ever seen those web designs that have a button or link that allows you to switch the fixed width layout to a flexible one? The new Mezzoblue design has one at the very bottom of the "About Mezzoblue" page, a Jeremy Keith (R) button in honor of my favorite advocate of liquid designs. It's funny and cute and worth a jolly good laugh… and it's about as ridiculous as breaking a walnut with a sledgehammer.
We have this magical thing called "max-width"
If you look at my blog in a web browser (preferably something newer than IE 6), you will probably notice that the width is fixed at 960 pixels. Or, you will drag the window around and notice that the width is liquid below 960 pixels. It's fixed, it's liquid, it's… OH WOW, IT'S FIXED AND LIQUID AT THE SAME EXACT TIME! There's no need for Javascript effects and cookies around here, just using CSS to its full potential.
Now I don't mean to be condescending here… I like to be sarcastic even when I'm talking about serious things. I just think that web designers need to step into the world of IE 7 and max-width support and stop using sledgehammers where a simple nutcracker would do the job just right. It saves a whole lot of development time and it makes users go through a lot less trouble get the flexibility they want; a win-win situation for both sides.
1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Pingback: UX Designer’s Quick Reference | butlerhouse on October 17, 2010
12 Comments
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
Dave is pretty clear: his alternate stylesheet is catering to the crazy people who want their websites to be as big as their browser windows, however big that may end up being. The whole point of his liquid sheet is having no max-width.
Fine josh, Dave is pretty clear, readable line-lengths are not for crazy people. I still think Dave made a mistake. There's no point to having a liquid layout without max-width, whether it is done with pixels or ems.
I say pick one and stay with it. Doing something, like having both liquid and fixed, because you can by creating a work around for people to choose is just another step to make them feel more comfortable… When really, your design should be able to compromise and keep everyone happy and comfortable.
I think it's the users that need to step into the world of IE 7 as well! But I understand the point you're trying to make.
I also noticed that Dan Cederholm of Simplebits has ditched his normal/wide layout switcher with the latest redesign (unless I just can't find it). No, it's not the same as fixed/liquid but interesting in that it gives only one viewing option where there was previously two.
Cederholm had actually taken that feature away for a few months before the redesign, but added it back at the request of users.
Patrick: It bothers me that leaders in the field of web design like Dave Shea and Dan Cederholm think that users who want features like flexible layouts are somehow "crazy." When your users have to beg for the option of having a liquid layout, that's just ignoring what people want.
"It bothers me that leaders in the field of web design like Dave Shea and Dan Cederholm think that users who want features like flexible layouts are somehow “crazy.â€"
Hmm, I must have been sleeping, where did I say that? For that matter, where did Dan say that?
BTW, I'm having a hard time distilling your point here. You're arguing for liquid layouts, for max-width, but against allowing people to choose between fixed and liquid. So… your one and only acceptable layout is a liquid layout tempered with max-width, according to this thread?
Mike Purvis and his jello lay-out is a better solution which would work even better if you could detect the screenwidth and apply a different min and max value set.
User-centred web design is the issue here. Some end-users will like to play with certain settings since they have each their preferences. And others dont care or know what it does …
Dave: Sorry, it wasn't you or Dan that said that, it was josh in comment #1. And yes, my one and only choice is a liquid layout tempered with max-width… especially an em-based one, but those are still difficult without scalable backgrounds. I said it 7 months ago in "Bad Ideas of Web Design" and I haven't changed my mind yet. In the case of both you and Dan, it's an option neither of your sites support. My point is that you could appease all groups of people (I'm making the claim that no one wants a site as wide as their 24" display here) if you used such a "hybrid" design.
Johan: Ah yes, Jello. If I had the time I would play with Jello and Javascript viewport-detection, but I just don't have the time. Story of my life…
Everyone, I'll have to correct myself; Simplebits has an elastic design, whereas I previously thought it was fixed. An elastic design is quite good, and decent justification for taking the liquid option away.
I used to use a combination of max / min width and some javascript for IE6:
ie) A max width of 1024px when the browser window size is 1200, and the wrapper is set at 94%
width:expression(document.body.clientWidth > 1200? "1024px": "94%" );
Ah, expressions… they sure were a good way to clean up for IE 6… but now that IE 7 is gaining ground I try to avoid them, at least for personal sites.