Posted by Travis Newbury on 01/23/08 19:29

On Jan 23, 12:19 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> > No they're not. They just disagree with you that's all.
> If they disagree with me by continuing to think that, "the web is made
> out of printed paper" then they _are_ wrong! You might just as well
> say that the Internet is a series of tubes.

The only thing anyone is disagreeing on is whether or not flexible
width is the only "correct" way to build a website. And we just have
different opinions on that.

>
> > People have preferences and they tend to gravitate towards those preferences.
>
> Of course. To recycle some trite slogan from McCola or whoever it was,
> "Your burger, your way". Good fluid design _permits_ choice. Bad
> design (and bad fluid design) prevents choice. Pixel-rigid design also
> prevents choice.

Choice of what? Font size? window size? Who cares. As a developer
of a website I may not want to give you that choice. You may say
that is the problem, I would say that is the solution to a problem.

> In no way am I suggesting that good web design is about grey
> backgrounds, HTML 2 and ugly design.

Neither am I

> > You are assuming that if they do not follow your flexible
> > width design they will fail.
>
> Of course not. It's a big problem, that's just one part of it. But if
> you throw a fixed-pixel design out at a market that can't make use of
> it, then they'll ignore it.

There is the key, you assume they can't, but in the real world
virtually all do see it exactly the way that the designers planned. I
can not think of a commercial website that is fixed width that does
not function on everyone's browser. Can you? Show me an example.

So what if you have to resize your window. I have to resize mine when
I get to a flexible width site because they tend to look like crap at
the resolution and window size I use.

Fixed width or flexible is a preference. It is a preference with the
visitor, as well as the owner.

> Does bad usability hurt a site? Well you've probably heard of eBay,
> and unless you're an old UK web-hack, I doubt you've heard of QXL. Yet
> QXL (in their prime) were the one that had the big UK ad-spend, and
> the better brand recognition in the UK. Lousy site though, and they
> died as a result.

So they had a lousy site. How do you link that with fixed width.
There are so many more things that could have driven people away.


> > You're right, but the pendulum swings both ways. You could fail too.
>
> As a contractor I can't really fail. I simply work on one site, or a
> different site. Like doctors, contractors simply bury their mistakes
> and move on! 8-)

I am the same, but with entertainment and sports sites.


> You specialise in graphically intensive site based around video
> playback, and with a strong graphic content to the "framing" of this
> video too. That's certainly the sweet spot for Flash and fixed-pixel
> design. I doubt if fluid design has anything to offer you here, when
> the only purpose of the "page" is to be the border around a video
> streamer that's already fixed to one size. TV doesn't get any better
> if you watch it on a Bang & Olufsen than an a Matsui.

Bingo! And do you know how many entertainment sites there are? And
have you not heard me say that what I do for entertainment sites does
NOT always work with other kinds of sites? And your impression of
video seems to be a box like a TV. My video interacts with the page.
Many times you can not tell where the video ends and the site begins
(thank you alpha channel)

> At the same time though, we're building _sites_ here, not just pages.

My designs are not always just pages.

> What use is it if the "Watch footage of Snoop Dogg's last concert"
> page is safely fixed-pixel bbut also the pure-text "Dates for the next
> tour" page is too? For band / gig sites in particular, I do a lot of
> my access from weirdly sized mobile devices. I'm checking ticket
> availability, I'm signing up for the ticket lottery, I'm checking if
> the delayed gig is actually goign to go ahead tonight whilst I'm
> driving there.

The site is not meant for your pda or phone. It "could have been" but
it's not. Snoop said "hmmm, we can either have the site designed the
way my fans want it, or we can create one that is usable by a cell
phone" (and yes, in this case they two are mutually exclusive) They
chose to pleases the masses rather than the few.

Look, I am not saying that fixed width is better or worse. I am
saying that only a fool discounts a viable option before they look at
the whole picture.

[Back to original message]