Fixed width or Dynamic

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 :(
 
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:
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. :)
 
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
 
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; }
 
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.
 
I use a fixed size of 800px, that is because my site is a photo website, and that is the width of my landscape format pictures. :)

deviant art is a good example of a fluid design. :)
 
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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom