Comments on: Relative things

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:45:29 +0000

I don’t think it’s a cop-out at all. I think there are some real challenges to working with non-fixed layouts: however, I think they’re exacerbated by the fact that, well, fixed width has become the de facto layout mode, so we never have these sorts of discussions. We’ve learned to sell standards, accessibility, and other best practices largely because, well, we eventually learned as a community how best to do so. When it comes to non-fixed layouts, I think we need to figure out where our collective stumbling blocks are.

By: Aaron Mentele

Aaron Mentele — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:07:58 +0000

That makes sense. Especially if it’s for a personal site.

Maybe this is another conversation, maybe it’s beginning to seem like a cop out, but it’s also hard to imagine explaining this all to a site managed by a client who doesn’t publish to strict design guidelines (e.g., photo sizes.) I can almost see the bug reports.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:57:35 +0000

Well said as usual, Aaron. And I definitely agree with your assessment that both fluid and fixed layouts have their issues; one isn’t inherently better than the other (though I have my biases), and designing in either offers their own unique set of challenges.

However, I’d suggest an alternative to this:

bq. My specific issue with the former is that developers effectively need to produce larger sites than are being delivered.

Not necessarily. I think you can definitely design to your “optimum” resolution—say, 1024×768—and produce images that best serve that sweet spot. I typically produce larger graphics because, well, I like accommodating folks above that resolution, but it’s definitely not a requirement. It’s really about establishing a sliding scale of support: if you want page zoom to take over once your user’s exceeded your “ideal” resolution, then I think that’s a perfectly acceptable decision.