[thelist] DEBATE: Fixed Width Vs Liquid

[Norman Bunn]

If the long lines at 100% width are a problem for some viewers, isn't it
likely that they use a browser window set at something less than 100% of
what their monitor will support?  So the graphics department's point is moot.

Personally, I prefer a liquid design that allows me to decide how much I
want to view/scroll.  It really bugs me having my browser wide-open and
only a portion of the screen used.  All that wasted real estate!

I say give the viewer the option with a liquid site.  Static sites
don't.  In fact, the 750px width hurts the viewer at 640x480 (about 5% of
what I see on my sites).

Norman

At 12:22 PM 6/4/2002, Ken Kogler wrote:
>I've come up with a (mostly) liquid design for a site I'm working on. (I say
>"mostly" because with the graphical elements, the minimum with is something
>like 600px. It's not truly liquid).
>
>The graphics department here says that a 100% width is "ugly" and "not
>readable" because "users don't want to read long lines of text." They're
>insisting I keep        to a 750px static width on every page.
>
>Arguments for or against this? I'm all for the liquid design, but I can't
>quite formulate an argument powerful enough to disprove the know-it-all
>graphics department.
>
>-Ken