Comments on: CSS Fixed versus Liquid Layouts and Browser Size http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/ Network Monitoring Tools, Tips, & Tricks Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:58:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Hayes http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-114 Hayes Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:41:52 +0000 http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-114 I prefer fixed styles over fluid/liquid sites. I prefer this because it tends to be a lot better looking. Some sites do a mix of both, and it works for them because it's a news site with ever changing front-page. (Talking about Digg here.) But for a business site, that doesn't change a thousand times/day, a fixed height/width would be ideal. It would also be cleaner, and easier to manage in the long run. As long as you keep the site clean, and not fluttered with a bunch of stuff, like side bars, and new posts all over the places, it will be just fine for your needs. 1024x768 is the best idea for now, as the only people I know who still display at 8x9 are old people, and people with old tech. Hardly business/IT professionals whom probably surf on 12x8(laptops), 14x9(19"wide), or 1280x1024(19"square) screens. I prefer fixed styles over fluid/liquid sites. I prefer this because it tends to be a lot better looking. Some sites do a mix of both, and it works for them because it’s a news site with ever changing front-page. (Talking about Digg here.)

But for a business site, that doesn’t change a thousand times/day, a fixed height/width would be ideal. It would also be cleaner, and easier to manage in the long run.

As long as you keep the site clean, and not fluttered with a bunch of stuff, like side bars, and new posts all over the places, it will be just fine for your needs. 1024×768 is the best idea for now, as the only people I know who still display at 8×9 are old people, and people with old tech. Hardly business/IT professionals whom probably surf on 12×8(laptops), 14×9(19″wide), or 1280×1024(19″square) screens.

]]> By: Website Design: CSS Fixed vs Liquid Layouts for Browsers? | White Sands Digital http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-113 Website Design: CSS Fixed vs Liquid Layouts for Browsers? | White Sands Digital Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:57:28 +0000 http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-113 [...] fixed web design versus liquid layouts to get a perfect layout for the most popular browser size. read more | digg [...] […] fixed web design versus liquid layouts to get a perfect layout for the most popular browser size. read more | digg […]

]]> By: jamEs - modsuperstar.ca http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-111 jamEs - modsuperstar.ca Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:03:27 +0000 http://www.dailynetworkmonitor.com/2008/04/15/css-fixed-versus-liquid-layouts-and-browser-size/#comment-111 I still stick with fixed width simply because it just makes prettier looking sites. Sure, there are sites out there that are fluid, but for the most part fluid layouts tend to look boring and sparse. Digg kinda has a kinda half fluid / half fixed layout that is kinda cool. It has a max-width of 1200px and a defined sidebar width of 300px then the rest is fluid. I think with my next layout I may try their technique out and see where it gets me. I still stick with fixed width simply because it just makes prettier looking sites. Sure, there are sites out there that are fluid, but for the most part fluid layouts tend to look boring and sparse. Digg kinda has a kinda half fluid / half fixed layout that is kinda cool. It has a max-width of 1200px and a defined sidebar width of 300px then the rest is fluid. I think with my next layout I may try their technique out and see where it gets me.

]]>