Re: Align DIV center?
Phil Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
> "Lauri Raittila" wrote...
>[color=green]
>> Phil Thompson wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Well it actually depends on the design. I notice that the
>>> perosnal websites of the two people haranging me, for advocating
>>> fixed-width design, aren't very image intensive.[/color]
>>
>> That is because they aren't. That irrelevant.[/color]
>
> Your preference for fluid layouts affects your design decisions
> blatantly.[/color]
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
[color=blue]
> If you were to start making your site more image-intensive you will
> come across more dificulties trying to make your design fluid.[/color]
Only if the images were necessarily large. Obviously, if the content is
fixed width, it may require horizontal scrollbars to view it in some
display situations. That is simply not the case for all content. That's
why L. Raittila said that, while fixed width elements may be neccessary,
there's never a justification for fixing the width of an HTML document.
You seem to think that image intensive pages automatically mean that
fixed width is best. Here's an example of a site with lots of images.
If you have MSIE/Win, load that url and select any of the galleries.
Note that there are only 4 images per row, which is what the artist
wanted. This was accomplished by assigning a width to the containing
<div>, not to the whole page.
Note too that the width is set in MSIE/Win only. In modern browsers, the
design is even more flexible. If you have such a browser (Firefox or
Opera will do), load up the same url. Now adjust your window to
something much narrower, and note how the thumbnails reflow to
accomodate you.
I'm afraid your contention that lots of images require fixed width
simply doesn't hold up.
[color=blue]
> Please read why alistapart.com uses a fixed width design
> http://www.alistapart.com/qa/#question21[/color]
A List Apart has useful articles, but their site design is chock full of
examples of what not to do, starting with fixing the width. Fortunately,
there are examples of how to fix their badly broken layout with user css:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> What screen resolution are you using? 800*600?[/color]
>>
>> Resolution is 1600*1200, which is irrelevant. Viewport is about
>> 800*1150. But that is not the point, the point is that I get
>> unnecessary scrollbar.[/color]
>
>
> Once again why is that irrelevant? Your resolution governs the
> maximum size your browser viewport could be.[/color]
Right, the maximum size, but not necessarily the actual size. Resolution
<> window size, and there's no way to know that. In fact, there's no
way, on the authoring end, to be certain of any properties on the client
end. That's the challenge of visual design on the www, and why
fixed-width designs do not work.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Phil Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
> "Lauri Raittila" wrote...
>[color=green]
>> Phil Thompson wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Well it actually depends on the design. I notice that the
>>> perosnal websites of the two people haranging me, for advocating
>>> fixed-width design, aren't very image intensive.[/color]
>>
>> That is because they aren't. That irrelevant.[/color]
>
> Your preference for fluid layouts affects your design decisions
> blatantly.[/color]
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
[color=blue]
> If you were to start making your site more image-intensive you will
> come across more dificulties trying to make your design fluid.[/color]
Only if the images were necessarily large. Obviously, if the content is
fixed width, it may require horizontal scrollbars to view it in some
display situations. That is simply not the case for all content. That's
why L. Raittila said that, while fixed width elements may be neccessary,
there's never a justification for fixing the width of an HTML document.
You seem to think that image intensive pages automatically mean that
fixed width is best. Here's an example of a site with lots of images.
If you have MSIE/Win, load that url and select any of the galleries.
Note that there are only 4 images per row, which is what the artist
wanted. This was accomplished by assigning a width to the containing
<div>, not to the whole page.
Note too that the width is set in MSIE/Win only. In modern browsers, the
design is even more flexible. If you have such a browser (Firefox or
Opera will do), load up the same url. Now adjust your window to
something much narrower, and note how the thumbnails reflow to
accomodate you.
I'm afraid your contention that lots of images require fixed width
simply doesn't hold up.
[color=blue]
> Please read why alistapart.com uses a fixed width design
> http://www.alistapart.com/qa/#question21[/color]
A List Apart has useful articles, but their site design is chock full of
examples of what not to do, starting with fixing the width. Fortunately,
there are examples of how to fix their badly broken layout with user css:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> What screen resolution are you using? 800*600?[/color]
>>
>> Resolution is 1600*1200, which is irrelevant. Viewport is about
>> 800*1150. But that is not the point, the point is that I get
>> unnecessary scrollbar.[/color]
>
>
> Once again why is that irrelevant? Your resolution governs the
> maximum size your browser viewport could be.[/color]
Right, the maximum size, but not necessarily the actual size. Resolution
<> window size, and there's no way to know that. In fact, there's no
way, on the authoring end, to be certain of any properties on the client
end. That's the challenge of visual design on the www, and why
fixed-width designs do not work.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Comment