Changes between Version 28 and Version 29 of WebsiteDesignComps

Timestamp:

May 4, 2007, 6:52:11 AM (17 years ago)

Author:

kstange

Comment:

--

WebsiteDesignComps

@@ -55 +55 @@
 > [wiki:nosnilmot]: +1! Me-too :-) can't wait for 'em.
 
->>>> [wiki:rlaager]: cool++; My only comment is that I'd hate to see this as one of those websites that doesn't properly expand with the browser window. It's really frustrating having a widescreen computer and seeing websites take up 1/3 to 1/2 of my browser horizontally when they're scrolling vertically.
->>> [wiki:joekepley]: We do typically design for fixed width. While nearly everyone supports at least 1024x768 these days, most people find it less comfortable to read blocks of text that are excessively long horizontally. Also, many high-resolution users don't tend to use the browser maximized. Based on our experience, users tend to prefer vertically scrolling (mousewheel) to needing to resize the window to make the text reflow to a comfortable width (find resize handle, click, drag, repeat for next site with different layout).
->> [wiki:lschiere]: I agree with Joe about fixed width design here.  I dislike having to grow my window horizontally to fit a page. 
-> metalzelot: No one has to grow a window horizontally to fit a page, exactly this is the advantage of a dynamic width. The width automatically fits the screen width. And I've never heard of any high-resolution user who doesn't use their browser full width. I'd really prefer a dynamic width but of course I know that this makes programming a lot harder for you.
+>>>>> [wiki:rlaager]: cool++; My only comment is that I'd hate to see this as one of those websites that doesn't properly expand with the browser window. It's really frustrating having a widescreen computer and seeing websites take up 1/3 to 1/2 of my browser horizontally when they're scrolling vertically.
+>>>> [wiki:joekepley]: We do typically design for fixed width. While nearly everyone supports at least 1024x768 these days, most people find it less comfortable to read blocks of text that are excessively long horizontally. Also, many high-resolution users don't tend to use the browser maximized. Based on our experience, users tend to prefer vertically scrolling (mousewheel) to needing to resize the window to make the text reflow to a comfortable width (find resize handle, click, drag, repeat for next site with different layout).
+>>> [wiki:lschiere]: I agree with Joe about fixed width design here.  I dislike having to grow my window horizontally to fit a page. 
+>> metalzelot: No one has to grow a window horizontally to fit a page, exactly this is the advantage of a dynamic width. The width automatically fits the screen width. And I've never heard of any high-resolution user who doesn't use their browser full width. I'd really prefer a dynamic width but of course I know that this makes programming a lot harder for you.
+> [wiki:kstange]: Now you have!  I use my browser at about 75% width at 1280x1024, and about 60% at 1920x1200.  I only full-screen it at 800x600 or lower.  I prefer pages that are dynamic in width, and as I've coded up many in the past that are, I am willing to lend my CSS trickery to making it possible if anyone has any issues getting it to work.
 
 >> jordanm: I see there's no link to a slackware package - if I can provide one, and one of the devs can test it, would you put it up? (ed: i've created one for b7 already, it seems trivial to provide one for 2.0 at final which works with a default slack 11 installation.)