|
|
Posted by Deryck on 08/19/06 07:48
mbstevens wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:57:41 +0100, Deryck wrote:
>
>> mbstevens wrote:
>>
>>> That is because any good template author would reject the idea
>>> of all three columns being a fixed width.
>> Out of curiousity, why?
>
>
> Open an 800 pixel fixed-width page with your browser. Now grab the bottom
> right-hand corner with your mouse. Drag it across until the window is
> about 600 pixels wide. That is what some of your visitors will see.
> the will have to right-scroll to see across the page. Now drag it
> until it is about 1200 pixels wide, if your screen will support it. That
> is what some of your other visitors will see. It will be a tiny page in a
> block of wasted screen space.
>
Let me phrase the question more precisely....
Why is it OK to fixed the width (and position) of 2 columns but not 3?
The problems illustrated in your examples will hold true when using a
3-column-with-2-fixed solution if the screen is small/large enough.
I have a 1900 pixel wide screen. Yes a central column that is 400px wide
results in unused (I wouldn't say wasted exactly) space BUT a 400px
column of text can be easier to read quickly than one 1500px wide (I
believe that's one of the reasons why newspapers use multi column output).
I'm not sure what either solution would look like on my Nokia 6630 with
its 176px wide screen.
>> Your solution
>> will only work if the screen size is known in advance and everyone uses
>> the same screen size. I could position all 3 columns absolutely but then
>> the result would be positioned to the left (or right) of the screen
>> rather than centered.
>
> That is only more evil gas hissing up from fixed-width pages.
I wasn't advocating it as a recommended solution :)
> A page on the web cannot be designed as a magazine page is -- it must
> instead be easily usable at any standard browser width.
s/cannot/should not/
Even if it's a dumb idea to do it this way, its what this client wants.
It can be done simply with 1 table tag, 1 tr tag, 3 x td tags. A fluid
solution in CSS requires a lot of code and a fixed solution seems to be
impossible. Whilst I have successfully removed a LOT of unneeded tags
and style I am annoyed that one table has to remain.
>
> I suggest you also look up about twenty or more back threads on this
> newsgroup, and google for "frozen layout", "liquid layout", "flexible
> layout", and "accessibility", and "usability". The regulars here have
> gone through this too often for most of us to want to thrash through it at
> length yet again.
>
Thank you for the suggestion.
I certainly wouldn't want you thrashing on my account :) When I
resubscrbed to this NG (after a year or 2's abscence) I didn't have time
to read the 4000 or so posts that Thunderbird offered to download, just
the FAQ. When time permits I'll check out the current thinking on liquid
layout.
Thanks for your help.
Cheers,
Deryck
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|