I am creating a website and would like to get the opinion of some of the more experienced web developers.
How does one create a website where the element style attributes (padding, margin, height, width, etc) are appropriate for the users screen resolution?
With CSS i get to choose one value and that is the final value which will be displayed for all users, regardless of their browsing resolution.
For example, say i would like an image to be displayed 10% to the left of its container i would do the following: padding-left: 15%; Now, that may work fine for some resolutions but for others i may need that value to be higher.
What do more experienced web developers do in regards to screen resolution differences?
It sounds like your goal is to have your layout look literally the same at any resolution, which isn't really practical. Remember that images scale poorly! What most designers do is use percentages where possible to allow the layout to "flow" to fit most resolutions while remaining attractive.
If you analyze (for example) Stack Overflow. you'll see that it is a fixed-width set that is itself centered in the browser. Apple does the same thing, with some art elements that are displayed gracefully at any window width. It's an artistic problem, and I'm not sure the answer can be given with any more clarity than that.
It depends entirely on your design goals.
Most designers use fixed-width areas and let it center on the screen.
In some cases you can use CSS media-queries to apply specific rules to different types and sizes of screens (browser support is limited).
You can use min/max-width to handle many cases of content growing too large or small - but there is no equivalent for margins.
SVG graphics can be used to provide scalable images that look good at any resolution.
Some companies provide an entirely separate site for mobile users.
There are other tips and tricks but in general most designers avoid these issues by using fixed-width layouts - even though that's not always ideal.
I usually define those styles in em units, which are relative to the font size. So, increasing the text size increases padding & margins proportionately.
Related
Regardless of whether it is HTML, XHTML or HTML5 you find those annoying percentages littered throughout the place. Yet... I see an awful lot of websites dare not go near them. Yet I was always encouraged through uni to use them.
So which should I be using? Which would lead to better site design and why?
I'm aware to avoid the use of height although HTML5 really doesn't like me not specifying height if I want to use percentages.
Thanks for taking the time to read.
It really depends on what you do you want to build up.
Sometimes I need to build a website which could be read by people with certain disabilities. If for example also older people visit your site its good to use % so that they could zoom in your page and the layout still looks pretty.
Fixed Design Layouts Fixed design layouts have a specific width and do
not scale to fit the browser window. Websites that make use of it can
be aligned to the left, centre or even aligned to the right as and
when required.
Benefits of Fixed layouts: With fixed design layouts you have control
over the line length, flow and placement of the elements on the web
page. The designer has a fixed space to work with and the line lengths
of the text and the placement of images can be designated easily.
Drawbacks of Fixed layouts: Fixed design layouts tend to leave lots of
empty space on either side of the design when viewed on high screen
resolutions. This dwarfs the size of the web page and gives an
impression that it is floating on the screen.
Fluid Layout Fluid design layouts use percentages instead of pixels to
define their width and they fill the entire browser window. They are
also called fixed or dynamic designs.
Benefits of Fluid layouts: One of the major benefits of fluid design
layouts is their accessibility features. They cater to more number of
users. This is because, whatever may be the screen resolution or
device of the user, fixed design layouts adapt better. It makes use of
the entire browser window by spreading out. This maximizes the area
for the content to e displayed and more information can be seen at one
go. Therefore, there is no empty space on the window screen. This is a
better bet as compared to fixed layouts that leave a great deal of
empty space.
For fonts, you should use percentages (or em's, or rems) if you don't wish to fix the font size in Internet Explorer. If you use pixels, then users of Internet Explorer who change their default font size in their browser settings won't see the fonts increase/decrease. So this makes your text potentially less readable for users in that browser.
A great resource for this is the first chapter of Dan Cederholm's Bulletproof Web Design.
For layout, using percentages or em's will make your design more flexible to changing font sizes/localization etc. This is also covered in the book.
What are the most commonly used pixel sizes (primarily widths) and what are there advantages and disadvantages?
How can I best find a happy medium to give a good experience to people with a wide variety of monitor sizes?
An answer with an explanation rather than just the size would be greatly appreciated.
the most grids use a width of 960px. (When the design has a fixed width).
When you take a look at global statistics 1024 range resolutions are still the most common: http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-ww-monthly-201006-201106
Do not use 1000 width. (You have to count in the border width of the browser and the scrollbar, in certain browsers / OS they are larger then in others)
I don't think there is a ultimate resolution that's why you should check the statistics on the concerned webpage (if the page already exists), to decide what resolution is most appropriate. If you can't do this you can check stats for you target market on http://gs.statcounter.com/
Or even better use responsive webdesign: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/
Since max- and min-width attributes in CSS, you can target whatever resolution you want, if you have the time / budget for it of course.
960px width is a good standard, as others have already elaborated on.
However, one should keep in mind that websites are viewed on a lot more than just desktops these days, so the answer could vary based on what the site is being styled for. For example, 960px would be a poor width for a mobile stylesheet.
One resource that could help you is www.resizemybrowser.com. (There is a similar tool built into Firebug.)
At the end of the day, I think 960px is a good standard, but really, "it depends". :)
960 is a standard for fixed-width websites. It is to ensure that 1024x768 resolution will pick it up easily. As for height - it does not really matter.
In general, for a fixed-width website, that is meant to be read on a computer screen, nowadays, I'd say around 1000px (because there's no 800*600 resolution anymore and the least you can find is 1024*768).
You should really aim for an extensible design (generally harder to do though).
Out of experience, for the web i would say a width greater than 850 and less than 1000 px preferably in the 900's and a height of around 750 px, but bear in mind that the height would be variable in case of dynamic content. so the height could be set to 100% or auto.
and best to align the website in the center, via the css property margin: 0 auto;
The most common size is between 900-1000 pixels there are some good sources for screen size useage which most people tend to desgin for the largest group. mostly its assumed anyone with a 800 by 600 screen wont want to be doing much business. ie strapped for cash (big generalisation)
I won't consider only the desktop monitor resolutions. Nowadays you can browse websites on almost any device, and is fairly common for people to browse also with their mobile phones and tablet PC, so you really should consider them both.
This could result in a different site version for different devices, or a site layout that is ableto accomodate based on different sizes. This is something you have to consider when first thinking about the website you are planning to do, since not every website is suited to have a layout of this type.
An adaptable layout has the added benefits that it will be good even if new devices with custom (non standard) resolutions came out, you won't have to worry about checking it in those new devices because it will fit ok (if the layout was done right).
Anyway my standard minimun width is still 960px for desktop monitors, and for an adaptable layout I usually choose a max-width for really huge monitors (think about viewing a site which extends for the entire monitor width on a 2500x1600 monitor... gosh) of about 1200px, and a 100% width if the browser size is less than that, to allow the website to fit good everywhere.
I am attempting to create a webpage formatted to fit the width of all screen
sizes (or resolutions).
In other words, I want to format the width of my page in such a way that anyone who views it will not have to use a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the screen.
So far, I have found no help on this topic.
Well, there are several approaches. One would be to use ems/percentages for your widths thus achieving a fluid design that adopts to your users screen resolution. The other is to have several css sheets for different widths and call them based upon a screen resolution check from a simple js code.
The first one is a bit harder, but yields good stable results. On the other hand, (as a designer) it kinda restricts your creativity a bit.
It seems to me like the latter is more widely used. Nowadays, 3 different stylesheets will suffice for most devices around the world. One around 900px will cover somewhat older screens, one around 1160px will handle the larger and more modern screens, and one for mobile devices(sorry, no idea on approximate width) should do the trick.
The way you're asking this question, not only will the width of the body have to be 100%, but the width of its the child elements will also have to be in percentages.
The only way to achieve a scalable web page is by avoiding fixed sizes. Of course that presents problems with text since it will attempt to wrap it on the following lines, so you must either specify a minimum width or combine it with a pre tag with overflow: hidden so that it won't affect your page layout at the expense of simply not being able to read the text.
Fortunately, you can easily test your page by simply shrinking your web browser to smaller resolutions and seeing how it pans out.
I am developing a website.
I heard that it is best to have a website with a fixed width.
What possibly could be the best fixed width I can allocate to my website ?
As Yahoo says:
* #doc - 750px centered (good for 800x600)
* #doc2 - 950px centered (good for 1024x768)
* #doc3 - 100% fluid (good for everybody)
* #doc4 - 974px fluid (good for 1024x768)
I recommend using yahoo styles and follow their advice.
Another helpful resource is Display Browser Statisics from w3schools.com.
While I agree to a point with those who say variable width has its benefits, I find that unless there is significant content, when a site stretches the content winds up looking pretty sparse as it's stretched out to wider widths. It's for this reason alone that many of my client request fixed-width skins. Keeping a site narrow can help frame the content and maintain a more 'constant' appearance (when that's a concern). Usually, when designing fixed width sites I use the stats over at the W3C for the most popular resolutions. Currently, I've been designing with ~980px wide, this allows for 1028 wide, with scroll bars and some background to still be seen. However, I am noticing a shift in statistics towards wider resolutions as more people adopt wide screen monitors.
However, it really does come down to what you feel is a good fit for the site, content and client.
960 Grid System argues that 960 pixels is a wise choice since the number has so many divisors. I am not sure that I agree, but they sure have an impressive list of demo web pages on their site.
You can find a link to a fluid alternative at the bottom of the page.
In my experience the fixed vs. fluid debate seems to be a designer vs. programmer discussion. Designers generally prefer a fixed layout because that will give them more control, while programmers generally prefer a fluid layout because that will let them choose the width they want, by setting the width of the browser window.
Ideally your website should scale with the width of the screen resolution. But that is difficult in most of the cases. Since most of the users still use 1024x768 resolution, so any width such that all the content appears on such a screen without needing to scroll is a good width.
Where did you hear that? A website with a fixed width comes with the problem that it (most times) only looks good where the screen suits the width. Think of a website with a fixed width of 768px, how would that page look on a resolution of 1920x1200?
You should develop websites that scale with the browsers resolution.
Here is a little hack that might come in handy. On the larger screens I find that not having a 100% width is good as the amount of horizontal eye scrolling is more than what is comfortable. About an A4 or foolscap page is what people like their content width to be.
However on very small screens if you set your width to 70% or 80% you will be wasting valuable screen resolution. So workout what is the smallest width in pixels that you will allow - for argument's sake let's say it is 800px.
Create a 1x1 pixel image the same color as your background. Then put this image into your content pane (div, table whatever you are using for layout) but set width="800px" height="1px", this will force your content to always be at least 800px wide but not cover the fullscreen on resolutions that have width greater than 800px.
As I said it's hack, and it may or may not be exactly what you were looking for.
Because websites can appear in any number of browsers, on any number of devices, at any number of resolutions, (phone, netbook or cinema screen?) a fixed width is a kludge. Kludges can work, but it would be better to design for a purpose, instead of deciding on some arbitrary rules and then sticking to them without really knowing why.
Don't just go with 1024px because most people can handle that in most cases. Know what you're trying to achieve, and use that to inform your decision.
So, who're you targetting, and what do you want them to do?
This kind of question really has to do with theming/templating and if you are using a CMS like drupal (and many others) can be flexibly handled to provide you anything you want. Fixed or fluid - whatever. You even can let your users decide.
I'm asking this question purely from a usability standpoint!
Should a website expand/stretch to fill the viewing area when you resize a browser window?
I know for sure there are the obvious cons:
Wide columns of text are hard to read.
Writing html/css using percents can be a pain.
It makes you vulnerable to having your design stretched past it's limits if an image is too wide, or a block of text is added that is too long. (see it's a pain to code the html/css).
The only Pro I can think of is that users who use the font-resizing that is built into their browser won't have to deal with columns that are only a few words long, with a body of white-space on either side.
However, I think that may be a browser problem more than anything else (Firefox 3 allows you to zoom everything instead of just the text, which comes in handy all the time)
edit: I noticed stack overflow is fixed width, but coding horror resizes. It seems Jeff doesn't have a strong preference either way.
Raw HTML does just that. Are you changing your data so that it doesn't render so good in random sized windows?
In the olden days, everyone had VGA screens. Now, that resolution is most uncommon. Who knows what resolutions are going to be common in the future? And why expect a certain minimum width or height?
From a usability viewpoint, demanding a certain resolution from your users is just going to create a degraded experience for anyone not using that resolution. Another thing that comes from this is what is fixed width? I've seen plenty of fixed size windows (popups) that just don't render right because my fonts are different from the designer's.
In terms of web site scaling I like fixed sized web sites that scales nicely using the browsers "zoom" function. I don't want a really wide page with tiny fonts on my 1920 res monitor. I don't know if the web designer has to do anything to make it scale nicely when zoomed, but the zoom in FF3 is awesome, the one in IE7 is useless...
The design should be fluid within sensible bounds.
Use CSS has min-width and max-width properties (which work in every browser, including IE7+) to prevent design from stretching too much.
The important thing is never to have a block of text stretch too wide. If a window is expanded, no block of text should indefinitely stretch to match because reading becomes a difficulty.
Like people have said, it really depends on what information the site is displaying. Two good examples are StackOverflow, and Google Images..
If stackoverflow stretched to fit the screen, longer answers would be annoying to read, because the eye finds it difficult to scan over long lines - this is exactly why newspapers use columns for everything, and why books are the all the same sort of width.
With Google Images, where the content is basically a bunch of 200px wide images, it stretches to fit the browser width and is still perfectly readable.
Basically, bear in mind the eye hates reading long lines of text, and base your design on that. You can design your site so when you increase the font size, all the layout scales nicely with it (The only site I can think of that does this is www.geektechnique.org - press Ctrl+-/= or Ctrl+scrollwheel, and the layout changes width with the font size)
I guess like a lot of things: it depends. I usually do both. Some content stays fixed width to look good or if it can't benefit form more space. other stuff is set to 100% if it seems like it'd be usefull.
This should be decided on how complicated the design of your website is. The more complicated, graphically or component wise (amount of content divs), will determine how well your website will scale. Generally you will find most graphic designers website will not scale because they are graphically intensive. However informational website will scale to make the best use of readable space on the screen and are not complicated for ease of use. Its a matter of preference really.
I think it depends on the content of the site. Sites like SOFlow, Forums, and other sites have an emphasis on reading lots of details, so having more real estate to do so is a big benefit in my mind. The less vertical scroll, the better.
However, for sites a little less demanding on the reading level, even blogs or retail sites where you're simply displaying an individual product, having a fixed width allows you to keep things more concise.
I'm a big fan of fully-fluid designs. As to the usability complaints about lines of text that are too long... if they're too long because of the size of my browser window, then I can just as easily make the window narrower as I can make it wider.
This is a matter of styling preference. Both can be equally usable depending on implementation. Columns can also be used, if the screen gets wide enough. Personally, I find it annoying when there is a single, narrow column of text going down the screen.
Edit for 2012: Yes, your website should respond to the size of the window it is being displayed in.
There are many places to read more about this, including:
http://johnpolacek.github.com/scrolldeck.js/decks/responsive/
http://www.abookapart.com/products/responsive-web-design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_Web_Design
Note: if you use the zoom functionality in your browser, a fixed layout squashes the text, whereas a fluid layout allows it to take up the whole screen.
Maybe this is just a browser problem, but it's definately an argument in favor of fluid
Paragraph widths larger than your display make a web site completely unusable. You have to jiggle the horizontal scrollbar back and forth for every single line you read. I'm doing a web design subject at university and the textbook calls the designs which adapt to your screen width fluid layout.
I'm designing my big class project using fluid layout, it's a bit more trouble than fixed width. I suspect none of the other students will use it, the markers won't notice and none of the professional sites we're imitating are fluid either.
I'd say fluid all the way. The user can always go back to a smaller size window if he doesn't like the result of enlarging it, but he can't do anything about a fixed layout.
If you really, really hate the idea of your site looking ugly because of something a user with a large screen does, then for the sake of all that is true and beautiful, at least never use pixel-based fixed layouts! CSS has these neat text-relative size units like "em" that allow parts of your page to scale with the font size while others (like images) stay in their "natural" size.
Why not use them and make your page scale well without relying on the less flexible "scale everything" of FF3 that's really just a workaround for sites that use a dumb pixel-based fixed layout?
A lot of people are saying things like "this is a matter of taste" or "I don't like big fonts on my high-pixel display." Number of pixels has nothing to do with it, and it's not a matter of taste. It's a matter of DPI, which is directly related to display resolution and font size. If your layout scales along with the DPI of the fonts (by being specified in ems for instance, and using SVG), then you end up with very beautiful, very crisp websites that work optimally with any display.
http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/anyresolution.html
There's probably a compromise design between fixed and fluid designs. You can design a site fluid-like but set the css property max-width to 1024 (or whatever). This means you get a fluid layout when the window width is less then 1024 and fixed width when it is greater.
Then narrow screen users (like my 800 pixel eee 701) don't have to twiddle the horizontal scrollbar to read every single line and wide screen users (who don't know how to resize their browser window) don't get 500 character wide, 1 character high paragraphs.