Posted by William Gill on 09/27/07 14:50

Andy Dingley wrote:

> The problem is with the ones who can only think about pixels and have
> _no_ understanding of web platform accessibility. The "must look
> identical everywhere" advocates.
>

It's been my experience that the computer monitor is too similar to the
little box in so many family rooms (TV). Some people are used to total
control of the medium in print, and the TV screen is just electronic
paper. So I begin by emphasizing that the web is a new medium,
requiring a new standard.

Even my least tech savvy clients can grasp the concept that each
individual custom builds every web page that they view, consciously or
not, through their choice of display dimensions, color depth, etc.
Without numbing their brain (too much), I show how these differences are
not like the difference between a 17" TV and a 54" TV. I usually say
that HTML is contains a set "suggestions", but the individual has the
final say.

> To be honest, I'd rather just not work with these people.

Who does? Some of us have the luxury of not working with people we
don't always see eye to eye with. I doubt that is universal.

>
> If the site has real content and the designer is a fixed-pixel
> obsessive, then I blatantly lie and cheat to fool them. Code it at
> 100% as it ought to be, demonstrate it as paper printouts only with a
> carefully-chosen default size to make it "fit", and never allow a
> meeting to happen in a meeting room that has a working browser in it.
> Block their laptop's IP from the web server if you have to.
>
> It's surprisingly easy to do this. If they're dumb enough to still
> think that fixed pixel design is a good idea, they're dumb enough to
> hoodwink.
>

I guess that's one approach, though it strikes me as a bit extreme. Not
to mention what says about my relationship if I have to "hoodwink" my
client, or their agent.

I usually point out that they wouldn't select content that could
alienate, or even offended potential customers, why use design
techniques that could. If I'm unsuccessful, or if I feel we can't come
to an amicable understanding, I'm back to "I'd rather just not work with
these people." It doesn't do me, or them any good to do something that
I believe is against their best interests. My professional integrity is
part of why the hired me in the first place.

My biggest challenge comes from third parties who's artistic intent is
in conflict with the medium. From the client's perspective we just have
a difference of opinion. I've even had one of these "artists" use
javascript to resize the browser window "to maintain the proper aspect
ratio." Talk about a rude entrance to a website!

I haven't gotten to the point of "give me fluid design, or give me
death" (my apologies to Patric Henry fans). I can come to terms with
some "semi-fixed" layouts, as long as they don't have to declare "best
viewed in..., or on..., or with...", and as long as the inherent
negatives don't overwhelm the positives. I've even seen some
interesting discussions on the effect line length on perception and
usability. That might argue in favor of a more fixed layout, at least
in it's outer envelope.

[Back to original message]