|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 04/06/07 13:19
Bergamot wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
>>In article <57l6loF2dha8nU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Bergamot <bergamot@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://www.brightfinance.co.uk/
I crtainly agree that this site exhibits a flexibility and elegance of
appearance that most sites do not, be they strictly fixed-width or
purely fluid. I like the way the site handles up-sizing of text and
down-sizing of browser. I know from experience that achieving that
status quo took a combination of skill and experience which I, for one,
still lack. Kudos. Praise. Hosanna. Etc.
>>>
>>>The columns widths are set in % (of window) with a
>>>total max-width in ems,
>>
>>If this is meant to imply that the cols grow at merely resizing
>>the browser window,
>
> Perhaps you (I mean that collectively, not you personally) don't get the
> max-width concept. :-\ To me, it is a beautiful and elegant solution.
Yes, beautiful and elegant. But not complete. I want more.
>
>>Another more likely example of a fluid design in this non 'font
>>variable' sense is a thumbnail gallery with a great many pictures
>>that are floated.
>>
>>In your example, there is none of this "taking advantage" in this
>>pure sense I am describing.
I agree (that is, I /believe/ I agree; I'm not always conversant in
Martian) with dorayme. Namely, I don't care for the fact that, upon
entry to the site at my defaults (the Web equivalent of what in
chemistry class we called "at STP"), there is a lot of wasted real
estate to the left and right of the content. I can't reclaim that space
except by enlarging the font size (which the site indeed deals with
marvelously) or narrowing the browser (which the site does graciously
permit). But for me, the ideal design adapts itself to my viewport (and
font-size and resolution, etc.), and this site, though marvelous in many
ways, does not do that. I get wasted space left and right, and a
vertical scrollbar so I can see the hidden content -- it's just the two
lines of the footer -- below.
>
> Um, the site I pointed to is primarily text, so it does exactly the
> right thing by limiting width in ems. I don't understand the confusion
> (apathy?) about this.
>
> What do you suggest that site should do differently to fit into whatever
> definition of "fluid" you think applies? I'd really like to know.
I can provide a suggestion of "what," at least in general, although the
"how" is elusive, as is the "what" for this specific site.
What I envision is a design allowing or making use of "chunkification,"
whereby chunks of content can float (in layman's terms, I don't mean it
has to have CSS float: set) to adapt to the available space. I then get
to see the maximum percentage of the content no matter how I size my
browser. It does not satisfy me to _have_ to narrow my browser as you
seem to want me to do with the Bright Finance site. It's flexible if it
adapts to _me_, not so flexible if I have to adapt to it.
Now, _how_ one obtains this kind of "chunkification" is part of the
Mystery of Life, for which I still seek enlightenment. Certainly some
sites, or rather, pages lend themselves to this idea better than others.
The Home page of Bright Finance looks like it'd do it pretty easily,
since it already consists of blocks. The other pages, like
http://www.brightfinance.co.uk/careers/vacancies/ , might not work so well.
>
>>you need to take a deeper look at the idea if it is to connect
>>and mean things to the average punter.
>
> Actually, the comments I've heard so far make me think other people have
> a narrow view of what a fluid design should be. Although the problem may
> really be they don't *know* what it should be, thus they don't recognize
> it when they see it.
I'm thinking about this.
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|