Posted by Ben C on 01/22/08 08:24

On 2008-01-22, Nik Coughlin <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
> news:nrmdnVOGxuckhwjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fn33ic$589$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Making that site with a liquid layout would bring a lot of formatting
>>>> problems to the people making the content. It'd just be a mess.
>>>
>>> Um, that's simply not true. This statement makes me think that you don't
>>> really understand the concept of liquid layouts. This site would be
>>> quite easy to make fluid. It wouldn't make any different whatsoever to
>>> the people generating the content.
>>
>> Like how would they keep everything in sections, without it fragmenting
>> too much? If it could easily be made liquid, why didn't they then? I
>> /think/ I understand the concept of liquid layouts. I don't think there
>> is much to understand, is there?
>
> http://nrkn.com/guardianFluid/
>
> I didn't bother hacking it to work in IE 6 so use a real browser to view -
> tested in IE 7, Firefox, Safari and Opera. Would work in IE 6 with another
> 10 minutes work which I have no intention of doing.
>
> It's very rough and I've only bothered doing the two main content columns as
> this is all that is required to show that it can be made fluid. Everything
> else is low quality placeholder images.

Looks good. You have a min-width of 942px, where the original site sets
a width of 940px and centres.

So on a very wide monitor, I can fill the width with your version. But
940px is already quite wide.

How would you make the page work at much narrower than 940px?

If you make the viewport 800px and look at either version, you notice
that everything still looks neatly laid out, just with no jobs or
dating. You lose an exact precisely-measured slice of gubbins.

I'm sure that's deliberate. I see it quite a lot on the web. This is
another trick to do the sort of thing salmobytes was discussing the
other day-- the discretely fluid compromise.

[Back to original message]