|
skreyola -> RE: New CSS Question (10/14/2008 12:58:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: skreyola
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunshinesoprano
What percentage should I make the wrapper width?
I don't really like using percentages. Percentages mean that your layout can change as people resize their browser window. Some of the accessibility folks might have issues with that, though.
That's why I love them. They don't force your users to view it based on how wide you think their browser window ought to be. I can see forcing width for certain things, like poetry or art that needs to be seen in a particular way, but text, in my opinion, should flow and adjust with the window width, both for convenience and accessibility. But I'm pretty big on accessibility.
Just out of curiosity, why would you not want the layout to adjust to the browser width?
I wouldn't mind it so much if people wouldn't use absolute px sizing for font size and disable scrollbars so I can't move the content if their lamebrain 5000px-wide layout doesn't fit my window. *shrug* I know it's rare, but it does happen sometimes.
Actually, the site I maintain is smaller than most windows. I forget the exact dimensions, but it's somewhere around 660-675px wide, IIRC. I opted to develop the web site around some pre-existing artwork that wouldn't scale properly if it were allowed to grow with the window. With a more functional, less "pretty" site (though it's not really all that "pretty"), percentages would work.
I may change the site eventually. The small size has been a bit constricting at times, though it does force me to be concise and choose my layouts wisely.
-Dan.
That's a good choice, if the layout needs to be the same width as the artwork. I never scale graphics dynamically unless they are very, very simple things like a square or a bar.
I'm not meaning to pick at you, and you can do things any way you want. Both extremes can get a little annoying. I know that studies show shorter line lengths are easier to read, but I just prefer to get as much on the screen as possible before I have to scroll. It comes in handy when I want to eat while reading. *shrug* I know I'm not like most people, so that's okay.
Too wide makes people cuss and scream. Too narrow may not bother a lot of folks, and the rest will just sneer and be less likely to come back, so I guess narrow is the best choice, if you're going to force visitors into a fixed-width layout.
Of course, there is a solution that fits both wide and narrow screens with fixed-width blocks. Have narrow fixed-width blocks and float them. If the screen is wide enough, it'll show more than one. Low-resolution visitors will see one column. I know it won't work for every site, but I think it's an interesting idea for some sites.
[:D] But in the end, a site is what it is. Some people will like it, and some won't. The main thing is to avoid the nasty things people sometimes do in Web design. Yes, I'm talking to you, people who write sites for MSIE and make others see messages that they need to change to IE. :P
|
|
|
|