|
|
Posted by Bergamot on 04/06/07 14:26
John Hosking wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> 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.
It wasn't intended as a be-all example. I'm not sure why everyone seems
to think it was. If I come across an e-commerce or other site that
showcases good use of fluid design for their type of content, I will
post a link. I ask that y'all do the same.
> there is a lot of wasted real
> estate to the left and right of the content.
If the content stretched the width of a large browser window (which is
what some people seem to think all fluid design must do), the lines of
text would be too long for comfortable reading, except at very large
text sizes. Then it would be as bad as the other sites Mr Segall
complained about.
>> 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.
>
> 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.
In other words, newspaper-type columns. That isn't currently possible
without some JavaScript hackery and the one example I've seen using such
a method was quite disappointing, plus a pain to navigate. The CSS3
properties that address this are barely supported (certainly not by IE),
so are not a viable solution. I think the whole concept is not well
thought out, anyway, but that is a different discussion for a different day.
So considering the current technology, what you envision is not really
doable. Now consider what is doable within the current technology and
we'll go from there.
> It does not satisfy me to _have_ to narrow my browser as you
> seem to want me to do with the Bright Finance site.
I never suggested that the user had to do such a thing. I only suggested
doing it so you could see how the design adapted to variations in the
user's settings, which you admit it does very nicely.
> It's flexible if it
> adapts to _me_, not so flexible if I have to adapt to it.
Why do you think you have to adapt to that site? If you find it nicely
readable in your default settings, why would you feel compelled to
change anything in your browser?
--
Berg
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|