|
|
Posted by Barbara de Zoete on 08/17/05 19:49
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:55 GMT, Joel Shepherd <joelshep@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hywel Jenkins <hywel.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (Hint: my screen has a resolution of 1024x768, but the viewport I use to
>> >> browse in is 655x436.
>> >
>> > That means you can't see your own site:
>> > http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html
>>
>> So? 'Sinning' against a good principle doesn't make the principle less good.
>> It just means I'm a 'sinner'.
>
> It also tends to make both you and the principle seem less
> authoritative.
Well, I wasn't the one bringing that page up. I merely pointed to a Google SERP
on the subject, because over there the whys and do's and don'ts can be found.
> Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
> pulling off a truly fluid design
What is a truly fluid design? You mean no restrictions (max or min width) what
so ever?
Mine flows between a min and a max width. The max is there because I don't want
the lines with text to get too long in a wide viewport (or should I say: some of
my visitors like it better this way; at least this is what they asked for when
it wasn't there). The min is there because, hmm. I don't know. Because I
experimented with it. My site is always an ongoing experiment. At least, the
styles are.
> -- or think that it's even of value to
> do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?
>
Well, 'can't'? It's not that I can't, although my pages don't show that at the
moment. It's something I didn't. Besides that: I didn't refer to my site. I
referred to a less involved party: Google. Through a search query I intended to
let others speak.
> Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just saying
> "make your design fluid",
>
I agree if it involves more than (almost) pure text as content. If some
eleborate graphical content is prominently in the viewport and needs to be shown
in one explicite and exclusive way, well... That's a whole different world
alltogether. Probably best resolve to broadcasting it on TV in that case, or
print a book.
> in which case people having discouraged from
> it deserve a bit of sympathy.
>
No, not really. All depends on the whys, hows. I really believe that creating
liquid pages should be the goal, especially if text is the main content and
graphics are just there for decoration and looks. In experimenting I created a
design for my private homepage that is only partially fluid, mainly because some
users asked me to do so (at least the max width). It isn't said I agree with
this or that I'll stick to it. :-)
I always get some responses to my site and to the design too, not just the
content. Not from here, but from actual visitors.
Before I had the response: The text is running too wide (in my full screen
>100px wide viewport, which never got mentioned). When I got that twice, I
responded by setting a max width. Since then I got no user complaints.
> Incidentally, that page has some real width problems when viewed in
> Safari:
Thanks for mentioning that. I'll look into it. You're probably right about that
search box. When I get some real complaints from real visitors that come there
for the content, I'll act on it too. :-)
No, really. It's likely I will create some new look pretty soon (because I like
to do that every once in a while). Then this problem is (hopefully) resolved.
Also some new problems are likely to emerge with that new design. They always
do. Isn't life fun :-)
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|