Thanks!!

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?

that should read

“specify a div as an image container…”

The latter tend to be computer illiterate, unfortunately. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think I’m just rambling now for the sake of it!