Fixed width layouts
Home / Site Building & Testing / Fixed width layouts
Hi all,
I just wanted to see what the current consensus was on fixed width layouts.
I know that ideally we should avoid them, but what's the real state of play on alternative devices? If I use a desktop web browser then obviously I lose the edge of my layout at very small resolutions, but what actually happens on smaller devices?
For example most mobiles will either ignore the stylesheet, or deliberately render the site differently to fit on a small screen, so what circumstances are there were a fixed-width layout will actually cause problems?
Lee
Share: 
WebTV. It's waaaaay out of date, but you can download the webtv viewer.
Hopefully there's a more recent version of this (or something similar) as this is pretty awful, but it does seem to demonstrate very much that it only handles x amount of width.
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
The thing about fixed sizes is that they only work in viewport widths near that arbitrary size they've been fixed to. 800 x 600 is the smallest common desktop resolution but 640 x 480 is still on the radar. 1024 x 768 is the most common desktop size but 1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200 and even bigger sizes have been around for years.
Normal television browsers (like WebTV) have a maximum viewport size of 544 x 372 but other TV browsers, such as NTL's, have a lot less space due to advertising strips. In contrast, the best High Definition TV browsers go up to 1920 x 1080. Opera for Devices already provides a high quality browser for these systems which is used by some hotels, home entertainment systems and so on.
So, there is a massive range of monitor sizes even in the here and now. Monitor technology is continually developing (such as HiDef expanding beyond the US) and so very large desktop sizes will become more prevalent. This is a continuation of the trend where people moved from 640 x 480 to 800 x 600 and now most are at 1024 x 768. However, some users (especially those in less advantaged areas or the developing world) are likely to use old kit with bad monitors indefinitely.
In addition to desktop size, you can't be sure how the user will arrange the browser. They may have several toolbars, they may have none. They make have a sidebar set to an arbitrary width. They might not use all the available width or height of their desktop. If they are using Opera's MDI controls then they can even tile several page viewports within the main window.
In this completely unpredictable environment of varied user preferences, a fluid layout is essential for a page to be easily used by everyone (truely accessible). Furthermore, the layout should be proportional by using percentages for column widths to ensure the page remains balanced across as large a range of viewport sizes as possible.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Cheers Ben, although I didn't need an entire re-cap on the whole issue... 
It's been common practice in recent years to use a fixed-width layout with a flexible margin, therefore making irrelevant some of the issues. For example, a layout that works on 640x480 or 800x600 upwards. Obviously this means massive monitors get large margins, but this is a minor issue. The real issue with these kinds of layouts is what happens with smaller than 640x480, but in most cases these would be different devices, which is why I raised my point.
Another reason for bringing this up was with all these new flexible layouts being displayed everywhere. http://www.collylogic.com being a good example.
I'd pretty much given up testing webTV on that site, because it is a bit poor, but it's a good point to consider.[/url]
Share:
Lee, a recent Cabinet Office report clearly indicated that UK Gov sites should use fluid widths. That report was done in conjunction with RNIB, Abilitynet and other worthy contributors and worth a read._________________
TaylorMade | @darrent71
Share:
I'd go further than that. The report indicated that if you don't, then you can't comply with WCAG-AA. But I've said this all before..._________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
As there seems to be a pretty strong concensus on using fluid layouts, I'll write an article about it to save space in future topics. 
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Well, the BBC does not use fluid layout. Nor do blue chips such as BP, Glaxo Smith Kline, Tesco, or HSBC. So organizations with almost unlimited budgets, by most people's standards, are using fixed-width sites - and clearly do not regard fluid layouts as essential.
I guess they do it because the layout of the site is controlled, and present the image required to most viewers. The big players clearly do not have a consensus towards fluid layouts.
Share:
The "big players" are notorious for having badly made websites based on the poor techniques being used nearly a decade ago, though. As such, what their websites do isn't an indication of best practise. For example, they tend to use fixed font sizes and broken markup with tables for layout, etc._________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
However, they do have the finance to market research what the bulk of their viewers expect/ are happy to see. Effectively, they generate market expectation for commercial sites - and sites that do not look as slick (no I am not advocating Flash or relying on javascript) cause doubts about a company's competence.
Fixed width - even with CSS - helps control a site's presentation. Personally, I would be happy with a semi-fluid site, using max-width. But there is the small problem that IE does not yet support this - and the only work rounds I know involve either a proprietorial class (which will not validate) or a horrendous amount of javascript, which causes screen flicker each time a new page comes up.
By the way, if you want to look at a commercial site which I do not condone, try looking at the VFD bust timetable, and find the timetable valid for January/Febraury for Grenoble to Les Deux Alpes. Horrendous. I had to ask a Les Deux Alpes resident to help me find it - though it is there, in Excel format.
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| IE does not yet support this - and the only work rounds I know involve either a proprietorial class (which will not validate) or a horrendous amount of javascript, which causes screen flicker each time a new page comes up. |
Anything that is meant for IE/Win can be delivered between Conditional Comments, thereby side-stepping any validation issues.
For IE-specific CSS, the '* html' / 'tan hack' is there as a cheap and cheerful option and won't invalidate any stylesheet containing it.
…fwiw.
Share:
Thank you Bill Posters. I was aware of conditional comments, but was not aware the hack would not invalidate. I shall look into that soon. Once again, thanks.
Share:
| kiwibrit wrote: |
| However, they do have the finance to market research what the bulk of their viewers expect/ are happy to see. Effectively, they generate market expectation for commercial sites - and sites that do not look as slick (no I am not advocating Flash or relying on javascript) cause doubts about a company's competence. |
It's all very well having lots of money, but it relies on the company management picking a competent set of website developers. From the lack of even the most basic semantic elements in most big company websites, obviously the decision makers at big companies havn't been picking educated designers who do proper research. They'll pick the trendiest design studio with the punchiest presentation (and the most exaggerated claims) rather than the best equipped usability laboratory with the most thorough analysis.
It's not about the money involved, it's about the expertise (or lack thereof) of the people who win the contract. These websites are made to look cool on the CEO's PC, not to be useful or usable.
Exhibit A: Volkswagen's website. A very large, multi-billion dollar company with a splash page, a fixed width (and height!) layout, fixed text size covered in Flash rollovers and animated flyouts (with sound effects!), with popups in places and text in images.
You're already aware that big businesses make some fundamental design mistakes (such as Flash and Javascript without alternatives). It's not much of a leap to realise their choice of fixed layouts also isn't the best available.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Ben,
You've clearly never worked for a big corporation!
It isn't necessarily a case of having developers who aren't competent, but a necessary evil of being part of a large organisation which has to deal with various factors other than just doing things the most modern way, from scratch.
Often the company is tied into a CMS which may or may not have had the input of the developers, or there may be issues around the way content is added, often by non-technical staff, and therefore its sometimes difficult to manage their input.
Then of course there's the fact that most companies don't have the time or money in some cases to simply start from the ground-up and re-design everything in the best possible way. Also, to design a large site using web standards, including the work involved in many cases teaching developers about DOM scripting etc, is simply going to take too much time and/or money for a company to accept.
Not being awkward, but it's easy to poke fun at corporate sites and their developers, but we don't live in a perfect world with limitless time and money, and the decision makers in these organisations rarely, if ever, have the technical savvy to judge the importance of web standards.
Share:
Actually, I have just looked again at the home pages of the sites I quoted more carefully. All use CSS, most make minimal use of javascript. Whilst there are coding problems, most are no too gross. All are fixed width. The look of a site something the CEO can appreciate - and obviously fixed width rules. I cannot see an objection to it, provide a width appropriate to a target viewing audience is chosen.
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum