Design Question

  • Jimmie
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 187
  • Loc: Ft Worth TX

Post 3+ Months Ago

When designing, is it better to use "%" percentages or set widths?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

First of all, most web surfers use 1024x768, and this is proven in daily
stats: ~ about 80%+.

IMHO, i always set the width to pixels. that way it doesn't stretch on
larger screens. others, like Bigwebmaster, would disagree, saying it's a
wasted of screen space when on larger monitors you have extra bg.

none of the professional designers I know ever use %. It comes down
to a matter of opinion really.

It becomes the preference to the designer in most cases. I hate %, cuz
at 1280 it's stretched, and at 800 it's compact. so dumb to me. When I
make a site design, I want it to look the same for every viewer.

The argument I always hear is that it's a lot of extra, wasted space. It's
not extra space. it's space i choose not to use. in that regard, it's part
of the design. i always use bg images to fill it, so really, it's not empty at
all.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Unflux is right, this is an area I disagree on with him, however both our points are valid points and it really comes down to your personal decision. When I design a site I will use alot of %'s in tables and such. I will usually never use %'s in images though, because it will destort those images. I would always stick to the exact fixed widths and heights with images.

If you do use fixed width's and heights like Unflux does, I strongly urge to do what he does and make sure you at least fill up that "empty space" with some kind of background or fade, or something to just not make it look totally empty.

Ozzu is an example of a site which uses %'s to stretch to the edge of your screen. Many forums I visit are like that, however there are some that use exact widths. I always see complaints from both sides, so I really do not think there is a right or wrong way. Maybe your best choice is to give your visitors a choice on how they would like it by reading from a cookie they have set. That would be much more complicated however.
  • turdmonsterGIA
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 54
  • Loc: San Jose, CA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Both have their uses.. look around the net and you'll see that sites that use %s look and function better that way. I sometimes use both in a page also.
  • Steen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 343

Post 3+ Months Ago

One could also for instance use the % to give larger monitors
more page viewing and allow the streching but when
a smaller monitor or when someone resizes the browser
to something smaller then 800 and wishes to prevent the
tables from collapse, use a 1X1 trans pixel to strech within
the table hidden to a size of 1X800

this will allow the tables to be stretch outwards for bigger screens
and as a min. only allow the tables to schrink to 800 in width.

I've had to use something like this at work for a site,
which had a top menu nav system where is was all fine
when fullscreen but as some began to reduze the window
sizing to something below a said amount, the graphics and
text began to wordwrap within the table.

my solution to that was to do the 1 x 650 I think is was
and that allowed the table to be stretch full size but only
be reduced to the point of 650 in one cell and it would then stop.


just hide a trans image either along the top or bottom
of any table with a linebreak. the width is set so it can't
get any smaller then that and thus the table can only
be reduced upon till the point of the sized image.

very handy ...


damn, did I even make any sense there just now ?

hmmm .... sorry!

I hope you understand what I meant.
If not I might have to show and tell instead.
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

slick technique steen. I use images to set table sizes like that as well.

I didn't mean to sound like I never use %, I do a lot. But all of my very
outer table, that sets the page's dimensions, is always fixed to a pixel
width for me.
  • Jimmie
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 187
  • Loc: Ft Worth TX

Post 3+ Months Ago

with images... i ALWAYS use the exact size. its the tables and such that I wsa curious about. I used to always design based on "set widths" and a while back, on another board I think I had seen where some said % was better... so Ive been doing it that way.

I dont often check my site in diff resolutions, since i use 1280x1024 and used %, i figured the page would look the same for everyone. Damn, was I wrong. My page looked like crap at 800x600.

I tried what UNFLX recommended or suggested, and set the table to a max of 760, checked my page and it looks the same in both, which is good. I think this really, could affect ones traffic, with the page being the same for all....
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

To prevent wrapping of tables you can also add the "nowrap" attribute in the table tag or td tag and that will prevent any wrapping from ever taking place. That might work out for some instances.
  • Steen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 343

Post 3+ Months Ago

posibly nowrap but not in combination of % and trying to retain a minumum aswell.
  • Borrow -A- Geek
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 763
  • Loc: Dallas/Ft Worth, Texas

Post 3+ Months Ago

i thought (and i could be wrong) that the NOWRAP attribute was simple for text, not images... can someone confirm this?
  • dreamer7
  • Student
  • Student
  • dreamer7
  • Posts: 95
  • Loc: UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Can u tell me where u get 80% from exactly cos i don't think thats right ive seen quite a few big sites that have been made for 800x600 and leave big white space at either side or a huge margin on the right side. Just an observation thats all im not starting an argument lol
D7
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

it's probably becuase they've fixed their design size to a pixel width. this
is my personal preference when both designing and viewing sites. I hate
when I rezize a window the entire site resizes with it. It looks bad and
it's really annoying.

Anyway, that's what this thread is about.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

UNFLUX wrote:
I hate
when I rezize a window the entire site resizes with it. It looks bad and
it's really annoying.


I hate when I see a site with a ton of empty space as in my opinion it would be easier on the eyes if they would take advantage of that space and either make their text bigger or use it. It looks bad and is really annoying to me. I would rather have a site resize to fill up the space. Anyway that is just my personal preference, as everyone seems to have their own on this topic :)
  • Steen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 343

Post 3+ Months Ago

You two need to get your selves a room !!

ROFL ...
  • dreamer7
  • Student
  • Student
  • dreamer7
  • Posts: 95
  • Loc: UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

lmao! well i don't understand why they don't use css and fix the background and make the center portion with all the 800x600 scroll with a fixed background. Wouldn't that be like sensible and look better?
D7
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

that can be done if you want it to, but it's not exactly what we're
discussing here. ;)

steen - hush yo mouf!
  • dreamer7
  • Student
  • Student
  • dreamer7
  • Posts: 95
  • Loc: UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

he went off the subject first!! :roll: lol
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

haha i know...np. :D

we all like to insert our own little comments here and there, it's all good.
  • Steen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 343

Post 3+ Months Ago

UNFLUX wrote:
... steen - hush yo mouf!


OK, solder sucker!

Image

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 19 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.