Apparently, there’s been some huff and commotion (3, 4, 5, …) out there about SimpleBits and Stopdesign dropping liquid layouts in favor of fixed-width designs. This probably wouldn’t have been as big an issue if we both hadn’t changed (by chance) the very same week.
While I’ve been in contact with Dan since his move, I’m not entirely sure of his intentions, so I can’t speak for him. What I’ll say about Stopdesign is that it’s merely an experiment. A temporary test to explore the strengths and weaknesses of fixed-width layouts. I’ve used both for various projects, and I know the benefits and drawbacks of each. I’m not biased toward either, and don’t think one is absolutely superior over the other.
After launching the liquid-width Wired News last year, we got flack from both ends because we did use the max-width property to control column width, and thus, line-length of the text inside. Since IE doesn’t support max-width, the IE crowd complained about hard-to-read pages that suffered from long lines of text. But because Mozilla and Opera do support max-width (Safari didn’t exist then), the crowd armed with these browsers thought it was “stupid” that we were not taking full advantage of the width of their browser window. We tried to go down the middle, but found controversy because of browser inconsistencies.
To solve the line-length issue, some have suggested setting column widths in “ems” so they will expand and shrink with text size. However, em-width columns can quickly extend beyond the width of the browser window after just a few increments of text-resizing, resulting in the awkward horizontal scroll bar. And even though this solves the line-length problem, we still have a “fixed width object inside liquid container” problem.
Without complete support of min-width and max-width properties, designers using CSS are left stuck in the middle of the debate. We have no reliable means to control line-length, nor prevent content overlap or layout weirdness when a fixed-width object (i.e. an image) is inserted into a liquid-width container (i.e. a fluid column). When an absolute column width is not known (as in a liquid layout), images inserted into the column must be kept reasonably small, so as not to cause any problems with the layout in narrow windows.
This, I believe, is one of the issues CSS advocates (including myself) don’t cover that often. Truth be told, table-based layouts are currently more capable of handling this issue than CSS layouts are. I’m certainly not advocating a move back to tables for layout. But unless dimensions are heavily manipulated by CSS, tables do work well at “containing” any objects placed within their cells. This, without needing to worry about content from one cell overlapping another, or a cell suddenly getting re-positioned below a cell instead of beside it. With the current abilities of CSS, I can see why some designers have chosen fixed-width layouts. Fixed-width columns provide a maximum width to which images and other inserted objects can be sized. It mimics the predictability and reliability of table-based layouts in this sense.
Honestly, I think the liquid layout of Stopdesign has worked rather well over the last year or so. The design was intended to be anchored to both sides of the browser. Column proportions and margins were carefully chosen to work optimally in a wide range of browser window sizes. I had somehow achieved a perfect balance of relative widths, proportions, type sizes, and leading where line-length was never an issue, even for users with very large monitors. But I’ve been missing the ability to use larger, more dramatic images embedded within entries because of unpredictable column widths. So I always relegated to smaller thumbnail-size images which linked to the isolated full-size image file. A fixed-width layout gave me the opportunity to try a large image that spanned the full with of the main column, as well as three independent images sized and padded to fit perfectly beside each other in the same column.
I’ve intended to write an entry titled “fixed vs. liquid” for at least six months now, but never got around to it. The urge to experiment got the best of me, and preceded the time I had to write about it. There are a whole host of issues with both liquid and fixed-width layouts. Some I haven’t been willing to write about because they spark too many debates. Whatever your preference or belief, keep in mind that the fixed-width test on Stopdesign is temporary. Certainly, it does not herald “the death of liquid layouts”. More experimentation to come. Remember, change is inevitable, but me thinks this fixed-width stuff won’t last long here…
Update: Liquid is back. You may need to refresh this page to grab the new style sheet.
57 comments
Ethan 5 years ago
“There are a whole host of issues with both liquid and fixed-width layouts.”
Emphasis mine, but I couldn’t agree more.
Faruk Ates 5 years ago
“Remember, change is inevitable.”
Change is also good, in my experience. Change leads to experiencing new perspectives, and in such new perspectives I’ve always found new ideas and more insight into the workings of things.
The fixed-width Stopdesign, paired with vBulletin’s new official style being fixed-width, led me to attempt some fixed-width CSS layouts (which I hadn’t done yet), and so far I can only say that these changes have been very productive for myself. I’ve already learned some new techniques, once again.
Btw, is it me or have you semi-drastically changed the entire ‘Post a new comment’ bit? It’s nice :)
Martijn ten Napel 5 years ago
Hello Douglas,
I understand you are in the spotlight and every move you make is scrutinized (and maybe right so, your “sliding doors” articles on ALA are brilliant), but it would be a sad day if you cannot decide what you want to do at your own website.
Writing an insightful article about it would be welcome though ;-)
Keith Bell 5 years ago
Re. your comments on max-width, Doug, there is a way to get max-width to work in IE — albeit involving a bit of Microsoft CSS bastardisation. It’s described here by Svend Tofte.
Keith Robinson 5 years ago
I like the fact that you’re willing to experiment Doug. I do that quite a bit and understand the risks involved.
;)
I personally prefer fixed width usually. However I’ve seen a few sites (your old one and Cederholm’s as well) with liquid designs that I felt worked very well.
As you say there are many issues either way you go and it seems like many times it just comes down to personal preference.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how this experiment pans out for you.
huphtur 5 years ago
why not offer both fixed and liquid? a simple style switcher will do the trick and could make (almost) everyone happy?
Dan 5 years ago
Nicely said, Doug. Like you, it was the unpredictable column widths that pushed me into trying fixed-width (also an experiment).
Unlike Stopdesign though, I think someone browsing past 1024px on SimpleBits would end up with horribly ugly line lengths. So that was another concern.
But I also already miss the fact that with a fluid layout, the user can go narrower than 800px wide and still read everything.
I agree with you, that it certainly doesn’t mean the end of fluid layouts. In fact, there’s been several times this past week where I thought about reverting back ;-)
Here’s to experimentation!
Jon Buda 5 years ago
I hear you Doug. Often times I begin a new page with a liquid layout only to convert to a fixed-width of about 760px or so in the end. It just makes thing easier, although having IE be standards compliant would be nice too.
BTW, what do you all think is a reasonable fixed-width? I try to accomodate users with 800×600 and up.
Sérgio Nunes 5 years ago
On the issue of minimum and maximum sizes support by Internet Explorer, this JavaScript module is great: minmax.js.
Just include this file to your HTML and /magically/ those CSS properties start to work in IE. No additional changes nedded.
Patrick Griffiths 5 years ago
I’m glad you brought up this point - many people have been reading too much into the changes to Stop Design and SimpleBits.
I think the simple, underlying conclusion to this argument (which I think is actually an important and interesting one) is that one method is no better than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I am a bit surprised that the recent arguments have been very much in favour of fixed-width and many of the benefits of fluid-widths have been overlooked.
Gilbert Lee 5 years ago
I think it comes down to user preference. So, how about letting the users switch style sheets so they have the liquid and fixed-width options? I’m not doing it on my site but I can’t imagine that being difficult.
Mike 5 years ago
I recently redesigned my site (hyperlinked above), and chose to go with a fixed-width layout over fluid for the same reasons that everyone else listed — at the same time as you and SimpleDan too!
But that still doesn’t make me as cool… oh well :)
Martin Neumann 5 years ago
As things stand right now, the decision between fixed or liquid layout is often one between an easier implementation/less hassle for you and the visitor in terms of a broken layout and making better use of the window space both for small and big screens. Given that your page design profits from the ability of scaling to the used resolution, like when using lots of text, it improves the user experience to use a liquid layout. However there are limits to the maximum desired width, so it would be very positive if the use of max-width and min-width would become possible across different browsers.
Well done liquid designs like the one on Stopdesign do have their place though as far i am concerned.
Tomm Eriksen 5 years ago
Must say i prefer the liquid layout. But you need to set the margins/columns right (like stopdesign) to make it work.
The reason why most websites has fixed layout is not out of readability concerns, but due to graphic designers lack of understanding of the fundamentals for webdesign:
- You can’t control the users screen resolution
- You can’t control the size of the users browserwindow (well you can try and annoy the hell out of everyone)
Graphic designers seem to try to make their designs behave just like paper. They need to feel they have absolute control over the outcome. That’s why we have all the fixed layouts and fixed font sizes.
In my last job it was nothing more amusing/painful than showing the graphic designers they’re work on some computer with other resolution/windowsize than the machine they worked on.
Steven Garrity 5 years ago
Note how DeltaTangoBravo.com gracefully handles large/dramatic images in a variable width column by using DIVs with background images. Browse back through the archives to see some nice implementations.
David S 5 years ago
I didn’t read your entire post yet, but I for one don’t care for liquid layouts. It is common knowledge (isn’t it?) that less words per line are easier to read (someone told me the “magic” number is 12 wpl, but I can’t confirm it). I hate websites that have their text flow to 100% of my browser width because it forces me to a) resize my browser window (a big no-no in my book) or b) scale the text up until the wpl is decent enough to read. I’d rather just get a decent content width and be able to leave things be.
Since, optimally, the column width is based on the text size, you are best off if you can define your columns in relative-to-font-size units, like ems. Of course, I don’t think this is always practical, but Engage Finance did a good job of executing that methodology. I would still impose a max-width on a layout like that, but the approach is a fresh one.
nathan 5 years ago
I work for a financial services company, so we have tons of wide data tables. In Mozilla based browsers, elements wider than a fixed width container spill out past the container. This might be a correct implementation of W3C specs, but it sucks from a design perspective. I prefer IE’s method: if something wide pushes the div boundry, the div will stretch to compensate.
In any case, CSS is great, but it still has a long way to go when it comes to handling floats, widths, and heights.
Funkatron 5 years ago
Does anyone have any experience with hybrid sites: site with some elements being fixed while others being liquid? Chris Schmitt talks about it in his book “Designing CSS Web Pages”.
Lars 5 years ago
I’m also surprised over the turn of the debate lately. Both layouts have their pros and cons.
What I think it comes down to is the number and size of images that the design needs to use. With images, a fixed width is usually preferable. Without, there is little reason not to go fluid, using the max- and minwidth declarations.
And as already mentioned, there are working max-min javascripts for IE. I wouldn’t use them on a personal site though, since it would remove any incentive to upgrade to a better browser.
But fixed and fluid designs aren’t mutually exclusive either. Personally I’d like to see Stopdesign use a fixed main column, and a fluid sidebar.
Adam Bramwell 5 years ago
Thanks for illuminating us Doug, and I for one will be glad when you go back to fluid. So many sites are doing the jimmy-jam to the left that I’m getting a sore neck!
Perhaps shifting my monitor to the right might help..
I’d like to reiterate a very useful technique Sergio mentioned; the minmax.js IE fix. Just pop it in your global.js and min-width and max-width properties work in IE!
Steven mentions how DeltaTangoBravo uses background-url to allow images to span a full column width.
I love the dtb implementation, but don’t think it will scale particularly well in its current form, as each image requires a separate id specified in an external stylesheet. Perhaps specifying them inline is the go?
For when fluid layouts go too far (such as Boxes and Arrows), I use a modified Page Readibility Bookmark that sets the body width to 800px. Haven’t worked out how to get it centred yet though..
Kevin 5 years ago
When I designed my site, I used em widths for the layout. If you’re below 800*600, then the em sizing spells trouble when you resize, however my fonts start at 13px.
That should really not get many people in trouble.
Andreas Sikkema 5 years ago
The problem with fixed-width can be that the main text is left aligned. The current design forces me to look to the left, in stead of to the center of the screen.
This is starting to get uncomfortable after a while…
s t e f 5 years ago
Thanks Doug,
I’ve been frustrated for a long time by all CSS advocates for this very reason: they usually don’t address the problem of images in any other form than thumbnails, usually with the implicit argument that ‘this is data, babe, no image allowed in this text, provide a link instead’. (yeah, I’m overdoing it, but you know what I mean)
I’ve wondered if I’d do thumbnails because it’s what I saw on all the CSS-hype sites.
But I never took the time to redo the images and think that, maybe, I won’t, eventually.
Big images also have a right to be inside articles, even though it’s an heritage from print thinking.
After all, the main aim is still readability and appeal to the reader, isn’t it.
pF 5 years ago
I def. prefer your fluid approach. But I believe this is only because I am staring at the left hand side of the screen so much. If it was moved to a more central position (not sure how that would work exactly with your site. More white space to the left maybe?), then I believe it would work better.
I find simplebits comfortable to read, but not yours.
JMulder 5 years ago
I second pF’s post. I am in the process of adding the final content a redesign of a fansite I am responsible for, which is build using XHTML/CSS. The site is 760px wide and centered. I feel a fixed-width design only works when the design is centered and not aligned to the left or right. It gives it a bit of a magazine feeling I suppose.
Fluid designs have their pros and I won’t repeat what has been said by yourself and others. The only visual problem I sometimes experience on fluid designs is the feeling that elements are out of their proportion, especially when the user is on a 1600×1200 resolution.
For StopDesign I’d like to see the content centered on a fixed-width design. The fluid design was good as it was on the more common resolutions.
Guy 5 years ago
I third pF’s comment. Just seems to be too much on the left on 1024×768 upwards. However, fixed layouts when centred seem much better. Another site that suffers with the fixed-width left-align is Zeldman.com. Simplebits seems a hell of a lot better with the fixed width but i do think that it’s because it’s centralised.
Nick 5 years ago
there is no one size fits all answer. even if both methods were free from implementation issues, you still could not say "Always use fixed" or "Always use liquid". There are so many variables that go into the decision and even those variables differ from site to site.
unless it’s a personal project, it makes the most sense to let the market decide. i can’t speak for everyone but, for me, there is a lot more time involved in creating a liquid layout that displays correctly across different resolutions than creating a fixed-width layout. and more time = more money.
James 5 years ago
I’m glad you moved back to fluid. I much prefer your site like this than I do when it was fixed- probably, as others have said, because the focus on your site is to the left, rather than center like it is on a site like simplebits. It’s unfortunate that web designers aren’t any closer to finding a means to truly satisfy users of all screen resolutions. At the very least, it looks like the premature “fluid designs are dead” meme that followed SD and SB’s change raised some awareness to the problem.
Sam 5 years ago
Wow. I first came to your site following links of this guy who had switched to fixed-width. I really actually like the design of you site. Both fixed and liquid. I think I actually enjoyed it more fixed (on my 1024 x 768), but I would be afraid to say that due to the flame wars I might start. However, it looks great either way. Personally I don’t think that you can’t have a fixed-width left-oriented site. I found it fine on my Res. IMHO.
Lach 5 years ago
To those advocating minmax.js: I don’t see how this helps, overly much. A respectable portion of people who use IE have scripting disabled. how do you then accomodate them? bottom line: You should never rely on scripting to fix these sorts of problems. It’s much better used to enhance content where said content is still usable without it.
Mike Steinbaugh 5 years ago
Doug, I think the best idea is to set up a fixed width site using max-width like you mentioned, and to also let the user choose between fixed or liquid with a stylesheet switcher. I let my visitors choose between fixed or liquid and the response has been positive.
Jin Kim 5 years ago
I generally prefer and advocate for fluid layout simply b/c then the width control is in user’s control rather than limited by designer’s preference.
Regardless of what statistics on readability inform us, if users prefer to have long line width, then I think they should be able to have it their way. If not, they’re able to reduce the width to their liking.
I do like the idea of offering style switcher that allows users to select their preference b/c it again gives users control.
I also think it’d be helpful to use some generalized statistic on what browser width most users are using from which to design the “best case” (perhaps even fixed width version) layout.
Also, perhaps what we need is an image auto scale feature in desktop browsers, similar to the browsers for PDAs, phones, etc.
David Clain 5 years ago
In an ideal world users would be able to determine themselves the width of a page or the number of words per line. However, it’s difficult to make the assumption that users will change the browser size to accomodate the sites they view; I very rarely change the size of my browser window.
We’ve got to do better than to say that users can choose for themselves, at least for now — the truth is, they won’t change the size of the window if they’re not happy; they’ll leave.
pF 5 years ago
Going back to the min-width CSS property I wish they’d develop a min-font-size property!
The amount of users who complain of small text on our website because they have their browser font scaling set to small and don’t know how to change it is incredible.
I realise that this would be an impractical addition though! But I can still dream!
Kevin 5 years ago
Hehe. I know what you mean. However, I sorta expect people on resolutions above 1152 to know what they are doing; they rarely spend the cash if they aren’t proficient with these kinds of things.
David Clain 5 years ago
I think people with very good monitors can be divided into two camps: the technically proficient and the rich.
The latter tend to be computer illiterate, unfortunately. ;-)
Jack 5 years ago
Fixed vs Liquid may be a very applicable argument when creating a website where words are the main commodity but what about those sites which are image-heavy? Is it just a ‘no-brainer’ to go with a fixed design?
(btw, I’m being nitpicky but this entry isn’t valid xhtml 1.0 strict)
JMulder 5 years ago
That’s another thing I guess. Even though many people say you shouldn’t design with pixel precision in mind, the perfectionist in me still wants to do that. It’s easier to do so with a fixed-width design than with a fluid design. Image-heavy sites is a part of that ‘easyness’ for me.
pF 5 years ago
If you’re developing two style sheets one for fixed another for liquid, you’re development time can possibly increase exponentially! Can we sometimes justify this increased time? I think better to make it fluid if possible, that way as other mentioned users gain immediate control. How many one-stop readers will really go to the effort of playing with style switchers anyway? Surely they are only there for the regulars?
I think I’m just rambling now for the sake of it!
Fredrik Carlsson 5 years ago
In my line of work, I’ve had more users complain about the site being to wide in high resolutions, than being to small. And isn’t the user most important in this issue? If the text stretches to far it really becomes unreadable. It’s also worth considering that most users sit with Internet Explorer, which lacks the Text Zoom effect of most up-to-date browsers (I’m a Opera fan myself). It also lacks the excellent function that opera has, which is to switch to custom style sheets, which is what always use when I come to a site that is rendered unreadable by the designer…
In my own opinion, Bowman made an excellent work with his dynamic lay-out, it stretches really well.
We’re also forgetting the fact regarding web design we can’t set universal standards for everyone. Although we can, will and at least hope to set some standards for the code and technology, we can’t really say that every site WILL look like this or that. So what it all comes down to is a case-to-case view upon the subject. For some lay-outs it’s better, for some it’s not.
As mentioned there are pros and cons with both liquid and fixed. It’s all about seeing when to use which.
Chris Wiley 5 years ago
Just wondering . . . exactly how does it follow that because you switched to a fixed width layout that liquid layouts “are dead” ? That’s crazy reasoning on somebody’s part, right? And is that indication that you should switch back? Perhaps if someone doesn’t really like it, they ought lump it, right?
cwolf 5 years ago
The issue here is not client preference in most cases. Print designers have a static, fixed way of designing not because of print limitations, but they cater to the audience by making it easy to read. Sure the Web allows for client preferences down to the smallest detail, but with an attitude like that, about 90 percent of Web pages will get neglected because user preference won’t be interested.
The most important aspect to consider is the type of audience you are designing for. For news, marketing, advertising and other mass communication, fixed width is a no-brainer because you want as many people as possible to be interested in your content. Making this easy to read will ensure more results. A large block of text will deter a general audience and only the passionate people will stick around.
Moreover, on the liquid side of the debate, some sites require that the user gets his own way in every circumstance. For a computer geek site, this is important. Hence the passionate reader sticking around. If not liquid, the geek will feel insulted and not care what the content has to say.
It’s important to consider that the Web is not advanced over print because of user preference; it’s because of better circulation and availability. Yet even more important is non-linear vs. linear. These factors should take precedence over trying to cater to someone’s preferences. You don’t see movie makers taking any input from audiences. Does that kill the industry?
We must never get away from getting in the shoes of the reader. Every site is different and serves a different purpose. Remember if you are trying to reach a large audience that doesn’t want to think too hard on the Internet, fix the width. If you are “designing” (for lack of a better word in this situation) for an elite group, be flexible. But don’t let your preference as the creator ever take precedence over what the reader will most appreciate in the end, consciously or subconsciously.
BTW. dont’ worry about white space. It’s OK.
Brent Eades 5 years ago
A couple of comments:
First, there is no firm empirical proof that a particular line length either deters or entices users. There is some evidence that users perceive lines of around 70 characters to be more readable than very wide (or very narrow) lengths. But there seems to be little difference in the time it actually takes to read either one. For that matter, there is evidence that longer lines can be read faster than shorter ones. Margin width also appears to have a measurable impact on readibility, perhaps moreso than line length.
So: one’s decisions on whether liquid or fixed is “better” should probably not be based solely on the unproven assumption that longer lines are ipso facto bad. While users may prefer short-ish lines, there’s simply no proof that longer ones will annoy them enough to drive them away.
Second — pointing out the obvious, I suppose — many types of content simply can’t be crammed into fixed-with designs. In my line of work, I publish lots of statistical data: tables of data, charts, and so on. The tables in particular can be quite wide, and cramming them into 600 or 700 pixel divs would be impractical. Instead, I use liquid lay-outs with plenty of whitespace to break things up.
Fredrik Carlsson 5 years ago
I think some of us need to take a step back and re-think why we are designing. We’re not only designing for our own satisfaction, but that of either the customer or the target group. Liquid or Fixed should ultimately be up to the Client and the Target Group. Much like large companies, getting a few test persons (preferably of different qualities), is ideal to see if the idea works.
We can never catch all, even though providing alternative style sheets, which has been mentioned is in fact a good idea for very large networks who targets themselves at a wide audience. The inital lay-out has to be greatly considered, and I would recommend using a Liquid lay-out as default, as these are more practical if we are talking about a content-rich page.
For personal use Liquid vs. Set is a matter of opinion and style. While some pages are more suitable for Fixed width, some may be not.
As Brent pointed out there is no actual proof that short line-width are better, it’s not really proven otherwise.
Typographically seen the Eye reads Words, not single letters. The mind forms and image of the words and interpretates the text. That’s the rough explanation of how the read. This also means that extending the line-width to far disrupts the word-image, therefore, making it harder to read. This is, of course print philosophy, screen philosphy differs a bit, but the basics are the same, at least in some cases.
I still stand by my original point, decide on a case-to-case basis. Going about it all by making solely fixed or liquid layouts tend to make the design look very narrowminded and often downright stubborn.
jim 5 years ago
I agree with cwolf, it just depends on your target audience, or sometimes it simply comes down to personal preference. Some liquid sites work well, some do not. Depends how much of a challenge you’re looking for since fixed width layouts on the whole are much easier to build. Once all browsers are compliant this will be a much smaller issue, but certainly the notion that ‘liquid designs are dead’ is a bit sensationalist. Nothing ever dies in design.
Rad 5 years ago
I think that fluid layouts are great if you use the max-width and min-width hack for IE as suggested above.
Gambit 5 years ago
I believe that its all part of the webdesign trends. Right now we kinda sticking to fixed width, which I think is the better choice, mainly because of the consistancy in design appearence.
One day Im sure that the trend might change. We might all be going for liquid widths. I suppose it’s all about taking up the challenges of trying new things.
Lets wait for browser support from the slow poaks at M$ and see what happens.
Philip 5 years ago
Fixed or fluid, well the debate could go on forever. More important is content. Surfers tend to overlook design when content is good. Design shouldn’t distract from content. Having said that, of course bad design can also make good content inaccessible.
Rajeev Sharma 5 years ago
The choice between a fixed layout and a liquid one is a hard one. They both have benefits and problems. I originally had a liquid layout for my blog (http://www.hoojamomma.com/), and then changed to a fixed layout. However, my reason was that I could use background images (ie. the gradients on my site) to make the layout a little more professional-looking.
David Hucklesby 5 years ago
I think the real problem is Internet Explorer. Honestly! Let me explain:
My surfing really began five years ago when I bought this laptop. It has a 14″ xga screen. But IE made me mad. Having to close pop-unders one by one; unable to enlarge tiny text sizes on many sites; unable to switch off scripting / pop-ups / flashing GIFs readily. So I tried, then purchased Opera.
Now I can read most any web site fairly optimally. Line lengths too long? Tap zero and make the text bigger. Content “too far” to the left? Press F4 and open the sidebar. Gecko browsers have similar controls.
Users are capable. But I, for one, won’t go through the hoops that IE imposes in order to tweak the appearance. No matter how hard you try, any design is sub-optimal under certain conditions — conditions that you cannot anticipate.
Suggestion: Let’s promote the better browsers, and tell visitors how to take control of our sites for themselves.
Dave 5 years ago
I think people with very good monitors can be divided into two camps: the technically proficient and the rich.
The latter tend to be computer illiterate, unfortunately. ;-)
chris tillam 5 years ago
There’s no real problem with image-size in liquid layout.
Within a framework that uses percentages for absolute positioning, and for dimensions, specify a as an image container; then style the image “width:100%; height:auto; ” and it’ll scale to the width of the div — or do it with heights, or with both dimensions. Your only limitation is the resolution of the image.
chris tillam 5 years ago
Correction:
that should read
“specify a div as an image container…”
Troy Mcilvena 5 years ago
I have been struggling with a problem of using a 2 column layout with a header at the top and a footer “across the bottom”.
The problem is, that if the nav is within the body container, and i position it using float:right or position:absolute the footer ignores where the nav ends and positions its self directly under the remaining content contained within the body container.
This generally doesnt cause a problem because the content is longer in the page than the right nav, but when the content is very short it makes the page look ugly.
The reason i raise this issue here is because you have placed your “typical footer info” in the right column, which suggests to me that maybe you too have pulled you hair out over the same thing… but surely you didnt give up that easily.
Why did you choose to do that? and does anyone have a solution to this problem?
traducteur 5 years ago
These in certain the people who has very good monitors are in the habit of being illiterate, because of it I have one very bad :)
ellan 5 years ago
Just wondering . . . exactly how does it follow that because you switched to a fixed width layout that liquid layouts “are dead” ? That’s crazy reasoning on somebody’s part, right? And is that indication that you should switch back? Perhaps if someone doesn’t really like it, they ought lump it, right?
Thanks!!
trothen 5 years ago
I recently redesigned my site (hyperlinked above), and chose to go with a fixed-width layout over fluid for the same reasons that everyone else listed — at the same time as you and SimpleDan too! But that still doesn’t make me as cool… oh well :)