Fixed width or Dynamic

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2004
Posts
7,621
Location
Derry
Fixed width is easier for the designer but it's a lazy way of creating web sites, as I'm bone idle it's what I'd choose, most of my customers however prefer proportional :(
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,464
Location
London Town
I don't believe there can be a definitive answer encompassing all situations - it all depends on context and requirements. I certainly can't say I prefer one or the other.

In general:

  • Text-based e.g. Blogs: must be fixed content width (short line-length of about 10-15 words) and then fluid or fixed for everything else (nav, meta etc.).
  • Applications - depends on what the application does.
    • I prefer narrow-fixed for lots of data-entry [Screen scrolls with the tab-focus].
    • For a 'tactile' interface, then fullscreen-fluid, as I'll be doing most stuff with the mouse [Screen scrolls with mouse - and I prefer not to have to scroll manually].
  • E-Commerce (follows on from Applications): Fluid-fullscreen for many products, allowing me to browse freely. Narrow-fixed for few products.

I prefer use of white-space over filling all white-space with content - that doesn't relate to fluid vs. fixed.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 May 2004
Posts
4,790
Location
Gloucester
As a user I find that I prefer fixed width sites, I really don't like proportionally sized sites because I use a widescreen resolution so I find sites look odd when they go to the full width of the page.

That said I don't like fixed width sites that stay in the left or right hand side, they should float in the center. :)
 
Associate
Joined
4 Aug 2004
Posts
1,890
Location
Grenoble, France
It normally depends on the type of site i'm designing really. But i guess my main preference has been fixed width for pretty much all the site's i've made to date.

Guess its just personal preference really :)

Hendrix
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
If IE supported it, it's nice to have a layout that's fluid up to a certain point, so that it shrinks if the user's browser is small and grows (but only to a readable width) if it isn't. You can probably achieve it in IE with some Javascript hackery, but I've not really investigated it. Something like:

Code:
#content { width:75%; max-width:40em; }
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Apr 2004
Posts
11,788
Location
Somewhere
If done right, I think fluid width sites can look really nice, for example http://www.2host.co.uk/. I do however, also like well done fixed width sites, although I find they're more effective for small scale websites.

To be honest, though, it all depends on the type and purpose of the site.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2007
Posts
3,896
Location
Bristol
It's said that text is easiest to read when each line contains something like 78 characters including spaces. That number may be slightly off as I can't recall the exact number but it's close.
For that reason, my company almost always does fixed width.

I hate having to read text when it goes from one side of my 20" monitor to the other. I can only imagine how bad it would be on a 24" or higher.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2004
Posts
3,172
Location
Brighton
My experience is, fixed width is better for image heavy websites - images don't scale, and so if your template uses specific sized images, headers etc then fixed width may be for you.

Saying that, I once made a special variable image header that wowed some of the people I worked with :D www.vast2007.org that header is v large and if you have a higher resolution, it automatically shows more image...
 
Back
Top Bottom